Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith

Background

Two drug and alcohol counselors were fired by their employer after they ingested a small amount of peyote during a Native American Church ceremony. The counselors applied for unemployment benefits, but the state agency denied them because the employer treated the peyote use as work-related misconduct. The Oregon Supreme Court held that denying benefits violated the First Amendment’s protection for religious practice (the Free Exercise Clause), and it did so without attaching significance to the fact that Oregon law criminalizes possession of peyote.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the denial of benefits unconstitutionally burdened the counselors’ religious practice. The majority opinion said the legality of the counselors’ conduct under Oregon law is relevant to that question. Because state law might exempt sacramental peyote use or might still prohibit it, the Court refused to decide the federal constitutional issue without a clear state-law answer. The Court therefore vacated the state-court judgments and sent the cases back so Oregon courts can determine whether the religious peyote use was lawful under state law.

Real world impact

The decision does not finally resolve whether religious peyote use is protected by the Constitution. It requires state courts to clarify Oregon law first. Depending on that state-law finding, the counselors could either be eligible for benefits (if the practice is lawful) or the state may lawfully deny benefits (if the practice is criminal). State agencies, employers, and religious practitioners must await the state-law determination before the federal question is settled.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Court should have affirmed the Oregon Supreme Court, applying earlier cases that protect religiously motivated conduct from benefit denial unless the State shows a compelling interest; the dissent said Oregon had disavowed using criminal penalties to justify denying benefits.