| Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 6, 1989 Decided April 17, 1990 | |
| Full case name | Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Alfred Smith |
| Citations | 494 U.S. 872 (more) 110 S. Ct. 1595; 108 L. Ed. 2d 876; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 2021; 58 U.S.L.W. 4433; 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 855; 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 39,826; Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 21,933 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Decision against plaintiff (Emp. App. Bd., 1984); reversed and remanded, 75 Or.App. 764, 709 P.2d 246 (1985); affirmed without remand, 301 Or. 209, 721 P.2d 445 (1986); vacated with question to the state court, 485 U.S. 660 (1988); re-affirmed, 307 Ore. 68, 763 P.2d 146 (1988); cert. granted, 489 U.S. 1077 (1989). |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 496 U.S. 913 (1990); Employee Appeals Board affirmed, 310 Or. 376, 799 P.2d 148 (1990) |
| Holding | |
| The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | O'Connor (in judgment), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun (parts I, II, without concurring in judgment) |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.