Employment Division v. Smith

Definition

Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1990 that addressed the issue of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment in relation to state drug laws. The case involved two Native American men who were fired from their jobs for using peyote, a drug used in religious ceremonies, and were subsequently denied unemployment benefits. The Court ruled that the state could deny benefits without violating the First Amendment, establishing a precedent that states can enforce laws that incidentally restrict religious practices.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The ruling in Employment Division v. Smith effectively diminished the level of protection afforded to religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by allowing states to enforce neutral laws that have an incidental effect on religious practices.
2. This case highlighted the tension between individual religious rights and the government's ability to regulate conduct for the sake of public order and health.
3. The decision has been criticized for undermining the rights of religious minorities and has led to calls for legislative action, resulting in the passage of RFRA.
4. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court emphasized that the government is not required to provide exemptions for religious practices if they conflict with generally applicable laws.
5. The case shifted the balance toward a more restrictive interpretation of religious freedoms in favor of state interests, impacting future cases involving religious liberties.

Review Questions

• How did Employment Division v. Smith redefine the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause?
  • Employment Division v. Smith redefined the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause by establishing that states can enforce laws that incidentally restrict religious practices, as long as those laws are neutral and generally applicable. The Supreme Court ruled that the government does not have to provide exemptions for religious practices if they conflict with such laws, thus limiting the protection previously afforded to religious exercise. This shift marked a significant change in how courts view conflicts between state law and individual religious rights.
• Discuss the implications of Employment Division v. Smith on future legislation regarding religious freedoms.
  • The implications of Employment Division v. Smith on future legislation regarding religious freedoms were profound, leading directly to the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. RFRA was introduced as a response to concerns that the Supreme Court's decision inadequately protected individual religious rights against government actions. This act aimed to restore a higher standard for evaluating cases where government action substantially burdens religious exercise, requiring a compelling government interest and ensuring measures are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
• Evaluate how Employment Division v. Smith influenced subsequent legal battles over religious liberties and government regulation.
  • Employment Division v. Smith significantly influenced subsequent legal battles over religious liberties by setting a precedent that favored government regulation over individual religious rights. As courts grappled with cases involving claims of religious discrimination or burdens on religious practices, this ruling often served as a foundation for decisions limiting exemptions from generally applicable laws. Critics argue that this trend jeopardizes protections for minority religions, leading to ongoing debates about balancing state interests with constitutional guarantees of free exercise, which continue to evolve in contemporary legal contexts.

Related terms

Free Exercise Clause: The section of the First Amendment that protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely, without government interference.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A federal law enacted in 1993 aimed at protecting individuals' religious freedoms by requiring that any government action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

Strict Scrutiny: A legal standard applied by courts to determine whether a law or policy that restricts fundamental rights or involves suspect classifications is constitutional; it requires the government to prove a compelling interest and that the law is narrowly tailored.