494 U.S.872 PDF

Title: U.S. Reports: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon, et al. v. Smith et al., U.S. (). Contributor Names: Scalia. Smith, U.S. (), a landmark in religious freedom jurisprudence. In Religious Freedom and Indian Rights: The Case of Oregon v. Smith, Carolyn N. Oregon Department of Human Resources. Docket no. Decided by. Rehnquist Court. Lower court. Oregon Supreme Court. Citation. US ( ).

Author: Kanris Vujora
Country: Egypt
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Automotive
Published (Last): 4 August 2005
Pages: 233
PDF File Size: 10.60 Mb
ePub File Size: 13.11 Mb
ISBN: 881-4-76518-848-6
Downloads: 88409
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shaktigore

City of Berkeley Brown v. The State of Oregon cannot, consistently with the Free Exercise Clause, deny respondents unemployment benefits. And, when the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, more than merely a “reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State” is required to sustain the validity of the State’s requirement under u.872 First Amendment.

Employment Div. v. Smith :: U.S. () :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In recent years we have abstained from applying the Sherbert test outside the unemployment compensation field at all. On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court held that respondents’ religiously inspired use of peyote fell within the prohibition of the Oregon statute, which “makes no exception for the sacramental use” of the drug.

Hillerman, People of Darkness description of Navajo peyote ritual. II Respondents’ claim for relief rests on our decisions in Sherbert v. Though the State must treat all religions equally, and not favor one over another, this obligation is fulfilled by the uniform application of the “compelling interest” test to all free exercise claims, not by reaching uniform results as to all claims.

Indeed, it is surely 944 to judge the vitality of a constitutional doctrine by looking to the win-loss record of the plaintiffs who happen to come before us. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a “neutral law of general applicability”. Indeed, not even Smith and Black disputed that Oregon’s interest in outlawing peyote was compelling.


What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer’s assertion that a particular act is “central” to his personal faith? Indeed, it is surely unusual to judge the vitality of a constitutional doctrine by looking to the win-loss record of the plaintiffs who happen 944 come before us.

New Hampshire, U.

Employment Division v. Smith

Once it has been shown that a government regulation or criminal prohibition burdens the free exercise of religion, we have consistently asked the Government to demonstrate that unbending application of its regulation to the religious objector “is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest,” Lee, supra, U.

The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. In my view, however, the First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect the rights of those whose religious practices are not shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility.

National Association of Letter Carriers Broadrick v.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith

The ‘good cause’ standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions. City of Hialeah, F.

Roy, supra, on the ground that those cases involved the government’s conduct of “its own internal affairs,” which is different because, as Justice Douglas said in Sherbert.

The Sherbert test, it must be recalled, was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. The fact u.s.82 peyote was a Schedule I drug did not persuade Blackmun.

Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Psychiatry”the philosophy, teachings, and format of the [Native American Church] can be of great benefit to the Indian alcoholic” ; see generally O. The carefully circumscribed ritual context in which respondents used peyote is far removed from the irresponsible and unrestricted recreational use of u.w.872 drugs.


See Hobbie, U. State action is usually valid if it regulates conduct generally, while happening to include religious conduct.

We rejected the claim that an exemption was constitutionally required. This potentially devastating impact must be viewed in light of the federal policy — reached in reaction to many years of religious persecution and intolerance — of protecting the religious freedom of Native Americans.

A regulation neutral on its face may, in its application, u.s.827 offend the constitutional requirement for government neutrality if it unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Myers Rankin v. Our conclusion that generally applicable, religion-neutral laws that have the effect u.d.872 burdening a particular religious practice need not be justified by a compelling governmental 4994 is the only approach compatible with these precedents.

Recent cases have instead affirmed that test as a fundamental part of our First Amendment doctrine.

Far from promoting the lawless and irresponsible use of drugs, Native American Church members’ spiritual code exemplifies values that Oregon’s drug laws are presumably intended to foster. Similarly, the other cases cited by the Court for the proposition that we have rejected application of the Sherbert test outside the unemployment compensation field, ante atare distinguishable because they arose in the narrow, specialized contexts in which we have not traditionally required [p] the government to justify u.s.72 burden on religious u.s8.72 by articulating a compelling interest.

Religion and Equality Law. They were fired because they had ingested peyotea powerful entheogenas part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. Federal Election Commission Williams-Yulee v.