Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Religious Events

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Legal Ruling

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1990 after two counselors were fired, and then denied unemployment benefits, for ingesting peyote at a Native American Church sacrament. The Court held that a neutral, generally applicable law is not subject to a religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause, denying the claim. The ruling drew wide criticism across religious traditions and led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 to restore a stronger standard, making it one of the most consequential religious liberty rulings of the twentieth century.

Facts
Scholarship
Where It Is Recorded
Reported at 494 U.S. 872 (1990) in the United States Reports. 1
How Its Legacy Is Contested
Criticized broadly across the political and religious spectrum for narrowing free exercise protection, the decision prompted Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993; the Supreme Court then held in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that RFRA could not bind the states, leaving Smith's rule in force there while RFRA continues to apply against the federal government. 2
The Event
When It Happened
Decided 17 April 1990. 1
Where It Happened
Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court of the United States; the underlying dismissal and denial of unemployment benefits arose in Oregon. 1
Principal Parties
Alfred Smith and Galen Black, members of the Native American Church dismissed from a private drug rehabilitation counseling job for ingesting peyote sacramentally; Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. 1
Consequences
What It Settled
The Court denied the free exercise claim, holding that a neutral, generally applicable law needs no religious exemption; the criticism it drew led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. 1
Status
Legal Status
Established that a neutral, generally applicable law needs no religious exemption under the Free Exercise Clause, commonly called the Smith test; the decision did not hold that no free exercise claim can ever succeed, only that this one required no special scrutiny. 1
Cross-Tradition Connections

Associated With

Source Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872Supreme Court of the United States

Belongs to Tradition

Source Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872Supreme Court of the United States

Related To

Sources
1. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872
Supreme Court of the United States, 1990the case recordView the Source
2. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507
Supreme Court of the United States, 1997View the Source
Encyclopaedia Britannica (online academic reference)
Encyclopaedia Britannica editors, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2024s.v. Employment Division v. SmithView the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.