Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith
Headline: Court allows states to enforce neutral drug prohibitions against religious peyote use and lets Oregon deny unemployment benefits to workers fired for sacramental peyote, narrowing free exercise protections for conduct.
Holding: The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not exempt religiously motivated conduct from a neutral, generally applicable criminal law, so Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to workers dismissed for sacramental peyote use.
- Lets states enforce neutral drug bans even when use is religiously motivated.
- Permits denial of unemployment benefits for employees fired for illegal religious drug use.
- Leaves accommodation of religious peyote use to legislatures and agencies, not the Constitution.
Summary
Background
Alfred Smith and Galen Black were members of the Native American Church who used peyote as part of a sacramental ceremony. Oregon law prohibited possession of controlled substances, and the State treated peyote as a Schedule I drug. After the men admitted sacramental peyote use they were fired and denied unemployment benefits as misconduct. Oregon courts split on whether the denial violated the Free Exercise Clause, prompting review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court framed the question as whether the First Amendment requires an exemption when a generally applicable criminal law forbids religious conduct. The majority said the Free Exercise Clause protects beliefs but does not excuse individuals from neutral laws of general applicability. Citing long precedent, the Court declined to apply the Sherbert “compelling interest” balancing test to an across-the-board criminal prohibition and held Oregon’s prohibition constitutional as applied to sacramental peyote use. Because the drug law was valid, Oregon could deny benefits to those who broke it.
Real world impact
The decision allows states to enforce neutral drug laws even when the user claims religious motivation. It means people who lose jobs for engaging in criminalized religious practices can be denied unemployment benefits. The opinion notes some jurisdictions choose to carve out religious exceptions, but the Constitution does not require such exemptions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment but argued the strict “compelling interest” test should apply and that she would reach the same outcome after case-by-case review. Justice Blackmun dissented, insisting strict scrutiny should protect the religious use of peyote and would have ruled for the claimants.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?