Oregon v Smith 494 US 872...,
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Chamberlain College of Nursing *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
405
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by alephatu
Oregon v Smith 494 US 872(1990)
Alephatu
Chamberline university
Political science
Professor:
Stephen Tolbert
Oregon v Smith 494 US 872(1990)
Summary of the Case
The "Native American Church" was a for-profit drug treatment facility in Oregon that employed
Alfred Smith and Galen Black in 1987 (Employment Division, Department, 1990). In its
religious rituals, the Native American Church utilized peyote as a form of the sacrament.
However, the rehabilitation group dismissed Smith and Black after taking peyote during their
religious observances. The counselors subsequently requested unemployment benefits, but
Oregon rejected their requests. The State cited a rule prohibiting workers terminated for
"misconduct" from getting unemployment benefits. The counselors claimed the refusal infringed
upon their First Amendment rights to free speech. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the State
Court of Appeals' judgment in favor of the counselors. The US Supreme Court then heard an
appeal in the case.
Case Outline
Title:
Oregon v Smith 494 US 872(1990)
Facts of the case:
After consuming peyote, a potent psychedelic, during a Native American
Church liturgical ceremony, two counselors for a private drug rehab program were dismissed.
Oregon State law declined the counselors' petition for unemployment compensation because they
were terminated for "misconduct" in the workplace, violating the state's legislation.
History of the case:
The State Court of Appeals heard the case, resulting in a favorable decision
for the counselors, who claimed that being denied unemployment benefits infringed their right to
freedom of speech. The question of whether or not the sacramental consumption of illegal
narcotics violated Oregon state drug laws was addressed by the Oregon Supreme Court, which
reversed the lower court's ruling. Consequently, the case was remanded to the lower court. Later,
the US Supreme Court was then asked to reconsider the case.
Legal questions:
The legal question was whether it was unconstitutional to deny unemployment
insurance to fired workers because they had consumed illegal narcotics, even for religious
reasons. The court also had to decide whether using illegal narcotics for religious purposes was
against Oregon's drug laws.
Decision or holdings:
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the state's rejection of the
counselors' unemployment complaints. In his plurality's judgment, Justice Antonin Scalia
highlighted that the government might control moral behavior regardless of religious views. The
possibility of constitutionally mandated waivers from practically all civic obligations arises from
granting exceptions to state laws that affect religion (Koppelman, 1990). Therefore, the state
statute bans employees for job-related "misconduct" did not include using illegal narcotics for
religious reasons.
Verdict and opinion (judgment):
The respondent, the State of Oregon, won the case by a vote
of 6-3 of the Supreme Court. Along with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices White, Blackmun,
Stevens, and Kennedy, Justice Scalia drafted the majority judgment. O'Connor, Brennan, and
Marshall disagreed with the decision.
Conclusion
: The Supreme Court's finding in Oregon v. Smith, which held that universal laws
not directed at particular religious practices do not breach the First Amendment's free exercise
clause, significantly changed the law regarding religious freedom of expression. In response, the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted by Congress in 1993, reinstated the high
level of scrutiny as a legal requirement for government activities that impede the free expression
of religion. The decision significantly affected people's capacity to request religious exemptions
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
from generally applicable regulations (Koppelman, 1990). Some claim that the decision unduly
restricts religious freedom, and the decision has received criticism and controversy. Others
contend that it properly balances religious freedom and the government's desire to control
behavior for the public good.
References
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872
(1990).
Koppelman, A. (1990). Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision. University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 138(5), 1497-1519.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3312228