Employment Division v Smith is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1990 that determined the extent to which the government can restrict religious practices without violating the First Amendment. The case involved two Native American men who were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a substance prohibited by state law, during a religious ceremony. The ruling established that states could enforce laws that incidentally burden religious practices as long as those laws are not specifically targeted at religion.
5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test
The Supreme Court ruled that the state's interest in regulating drug use outweighed the claim of religious freedom in this case.
The decision established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if they incidentally impact religious practices.
The ruling led to significant debate about the balance between government regulation and religious freedoms.
In response to the decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to provide stronger protections for religious practices.
This case marked a shift in how courts interpret religious freedom cases, moving away from a more protective standard towards one that allows for greater government regulation.
Review Questions
How did the ruling in Employment Division v Smith change the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause?
The ruling in Employment Division v Smith clarified that laws that are neutral and generally applicable do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they have an incidental impact on religious practices. This marked a significant shift in how courts interpret the balance between governmental interests and individual religious freedoms, emphasizing that not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional if they stem from generally applicable laws.
Discuss the implications of the Employment Division v Smith decision on subsequent legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The Employment Division v Smith decision prompted Congress to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which sought to restore more robust protections for individuals claiming that their religious exercise was being burdened by state or federal laws. RFRA established a standard requiring the government to show a compelling interest when enacting laws that might restrict religious practices, effectively countering the narrower interpretation set by Smith. This legislation reflected ongoing concerns about protecting religious freedoms in light of governmental regulations.
Evaluate how Employment Division v Smith has influenced judicial approaches to cases involving religious freedom since its ruling.
Since Employment Division v Smith, judicial approaches to cases involving religious freedom have leaned toward allowing greater governmental regulation of religious practices unless specific exemptions are granted through laws like RFRA. Courts have often applied a strict scrutiny standard in cases where individuals challenge government actions as violations of their free exercise rights. This evolution reflects an ongoing tension between maintaining social order through regulation and upholding constitutional protections for individual beliefs, leading to complex legal arguments and varied outcomes in subsequent cases.
A provision in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely without government interference.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A 1993 federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion, unless the government can show a compelling interest.
A standard of judicial review that requires the government to prove that a law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.