Facts of the Case

Alfred Smith and Galen Black, two Native Americans and members of the Native American Church, were fired from their jobs as counselors at a private drug rehabilitation organization because they had ingested peyote, a powerful hallucinogen, as part of a religious ceremony. The Oregon Employment Division denied them unemployment benefits because their dismissal was deemed work-related “misconduct.” Smith and Black argued that this denial violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Constitutional Question

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes, or does this denial violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

Arguments

For Smith and Black:

• The use of peyote was part of a religious ritual, and denying unemployment benefits for this reason infringes on their right to freely exercise their religion.
• The state must demonstrate a compelling interest before it can infringe upon religious practices, and no such compelling interest was demonstrated in this case.
• The denial of benefits penalizes individuals for practicing their religion, which is unconstitutional.

For the Employment Division (Oregon):

• The prohibition of peyote use is a generally applicable criminal law that does not target specific religious practices.
• Allowing exceptions to criminal laws for religious practices would lead to a chaotic legal landscape and undermine the enforcement of laws.
• The state’s interest in regulating controlled substances and maintaining a drug-free workplace justifies the denial of benefits.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of the Employment Division. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the Free Exercise Clause does not exempt individuals from complying with neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practices. The Court concluded that 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. Therefore, the denial of unemployment benefits to Smith and Black for their use of peyote was upheld as constitutional.

Significance

Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark case that significantly altered the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. The decision established that individuals must comply with generally applicable laws, even if those laws incidentally burden their religious practices, unless the law specifically targets religious conduct. This ruling marked a departure from previous decisions that required the government to demonstrate a compelling interest for laws that burdened religious practices. In response to this decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, aiming to restore the compelling interest test and provide broader protections for religious exercise. The case continues to influence debates and legal standards regarding religious freedom and the application of generally applicable laws.