Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Employment Division v. Smith: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=April 17, 1990 | |date=April 17, 1990 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Liberties | |subject=Constitutional Liberties | ||
|other_subjects=First Amendment | |||
|appealed_from=Oregon Supreme Court | |appealed_from=Oregon Supreme Court | ||
|case_treatment=No | |case_treatment=No |
Revision as of 17:20, January 16, 2023
Employment Division v. Smith | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | April 17, 1990 |
Appealed from | Oregon Supreme Court |
Facts
A Native American Church practiced syncretism by combining Christianity and Native American religious practices.
Consumption of peyote, a psychoactive drug, was part of a religious ritual in a Native American church in Oregon.
Oregon in the 1980s didn't exempt peyote from the state's drug laws.
Smith (a native American) had been dismissed from his job for using peyote at a sacramental worship rite. He and another fellow co-worker were denied unemployment benefits for work misconduct.Holding
Prohibiting a controlled substance such as peyote despite is ritual usage in a local religion doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.