Employment Division v. Smith

Definition

Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1990 that ruled that the government can deny unemployment benefits to individuals fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes, without violating the Free Exercise Clause. This case clarified the limits of religious freedom in relation to generally applicable laws, impacting how courts interpret the balance between individual religious practices and government regulations.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case involved two Native American drug counselors who were fired for using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, during a religious ceremony.
2. The Supreme Court held that the state's interest in regulating drug use outweighed the respondents' religious beliefs.
3. This decision led to significant backlash, prompting Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to restore protections for religious practices.
4. The ruling established that neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally restrict religious practices.
5. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that the government has the right to enforce laws that serve public interests, even when they conflict with religious practices.

Review Questions

• How did Employment Division v. Smith change the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause in relation to generally applicable laws?
  • Employment Division v. Smith significantly changed how courts interpret the Free Exercise Clause by establishing that neutral laws applying to everyone do not violate an individual's right to practice their religion. The Supreme Court ruled that as long as a law is generally applicable and does not target a specific religious practice, it can be enforced even if it burdens someone's religious beliefs. This marked a shift from previous rulings that provided more robust protections for religious practices against neutral laws.
• Discuss the implications of Employment Division v. Smith on subsequent legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  • The implications of Employment Division v. Smith led directly to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which aimed to restore stricter protections for religious exercise. RFRA was designed to counterbalance the decision by requiring that any law imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise must pass strict scrutiny. This legislation emphasized Congress's intent to protect religious freedoms, leading to further discussions about balancing government interests with individual rights.
• Evaluate how Employment Division v. Smith reflects broader societal tensions between drug regulation and religious freedom.
  • Employment Division v. Smith exemplifies the ongoing societal tensions between government regulation of substances and individual rights to religious expression. The case highlights how the legal system navigates conflicts where public safety and health regulations intersect with personal freedoms rooted in faith. The Supreme Court's ruling indicates a preference for maintaining societal order through law enforcement over accommodating particular religious practices, which raises questions about how far governments should go in respecting diverse spiritual beliefs when they conflict with established public policies.

Related terms

Free Exercise Clause:

The portion of the First Amendment that protects citizens' rights to practice their religion freely without government interference.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): A 1993 law aimed at ensuring that interests in religious freedom are protected, reinstating the stricter scrutiny standard for laws that substantially burden religious exercise.

Strict Scrutiny: A legal standard used by courts to determine whether a law or policy is constitutional; it requires that a law serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.