Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Employment Division v. Smith

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree Exercise Clauseneutral generally applicable lawsreligious exemptionsFree Exercise Clauseneutral lawgeneral applicabilityreligious exemption

Facts

Oregon law prohibited the knowing or intentional possession of controlled substances, including peyote, and made no exception for sacramental use. Respondents Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from their jobs with a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote for sacramental purposes at a Native American Church ceremony. When they applied for unemployment compensation, Oregon denied benefits on the ground that they had been discharged for work-related misconduct. The Oregon Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause barred both the criminal prohibition as applied and the denial of benefits.

Issue

Whether the Free Exercise Clause prohibits Oregon from applying its general criminal ban on peyote possession to respondents' religiously motivated sacramental use, and therefore from denying unemployment benefits based on dismissal for that conduct. More broadly, the issue was whether religious motivation entitles a person to an exemption from a valid, neutral law of general applicability.

Rule

The Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual from complying with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes or prescribes conduct that his religion proscribes or prescribes. The Sherbert compelling-interest test does not apply to challenges seeking religious exemptions from an across-the-board criminal prohibition, though prior unemployment-compensation cases involved individualized exemption systems.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, a statewide criminal statute makes possession of a certain cactus-derived hallucinogen a misdemeanor unless dispensed by a licensed physician. The law applies to everyone and contains no exception for ceremonial use. Members of a small faith in Cleveland ingest the substance during monthly worship and are prosecuted.

Under the Free Exercise Clause, are the worshipers most likely entitled to a constitutional exemption from the criminal statute?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual from complying with a valid and neutral law of general applicability merely because the law forbids conduct his religion requires. An across-the-board criminal prohibition that is not aimed at religion may be enforced against religiously motivated conduct. The Court rejected both a categorical exemption and judicial inquiry into the centrality of the practice.