The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, November 6, 1989
Decision: Tuesday, April 17, 1990
Issues: First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion
Categories: first amendment, freedom of religion, labor, native americans

Advocates

Craig J. Dorsay (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Dave Frohnmayer (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
David B. Frohnmayer (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the disgruntled employees, and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture.

Question

Does the state law violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion

No. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for Employment Division, 3 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Free Exercise of Religion
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Blackmun's dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the minority, joined Blackmun's dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Marshall
Wrote a dissent, joined O'Connor's dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote a special concurrence
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213/>
(last visited ).