Anyone who is educated in law/legality terms: need major help with my paper!!?

[elkan80]

this is my first court case to write about and i am honestly so confused. i am wondering the summary/final ruling in the case below and its significance with the 1st amendment. thank you so much in advance!

The summary of Employment Division v. Smith ruling/its significance with 1st amendment

In Oregon, two counselors in a program for chemically dependent persons agreed, as a condition of their employment, not to use any addictive substances. But as Native Americans and members of the Native American Church, they used peyote as part of their traditional worship service. Peyote is a mild hallucinogenic drug derived from mescaline cactus.

The two counselors were fired from their jobs when their employer discovered that they took peyote for sacramental purposes and then later denied unemployment compensation on the because their dismissal was for work-related 'misconduct'.

The Oregon Supreme Court first ruled that the two deserved the unemployment benefits because the state's interest in its compensation fund did not outweigh the burden that the decision placed on their religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the state court for them to decide whether it was constitutional to proscribe the use of sacramental peyote in the first place. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that such a law was constitutional, and the case was then returned to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 1990 that the Oregon law was constitutional and that, therefore, the denial of unemployment benefits was permissible.

In earlier rulings, the Court had ruled that the government could not condition access to unemployment insurance or other benefits on an individual's willingness to give up conduct required by their religion. However, the Supreme Court did not find that this principle also applied when the conduct in question is justifiably prohibited by law. For the first time in an unemployment compensation case, the Court found against the believer and for the state.

Of particular importance was the fact that the Oregon law was not directed at the Native Americans' religious practice specifically; thus, it was deemed constitutional when applied to all citizens:

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.
The overriding principle for the court was the fact that the laws in question were never created with religion in mind and were generally applicable to all citizens.

[darvell]

I'm not sure what your question is. But the nutshell of this case is that if the law had been drafted with the specific intention of targeting peyote, a drug that has been used in Native American religious ceremonies for a considerable period of time, then it would have been a violation of the First Amendment because it would have been targeting the religious practice of a specific group.

In this situation, it was not the intent of the legislators to target any particular group. It was a broad anti-drug law that was applicable to every citizen - not just the users of peyote. Since it was not intended to have any impact on religion, the law was not unconstitutional even though it did have a side consequence of impacting the religious ceremonies of Native Americans.

By way of comparison: Let's say that a jurisdiction had voodoo practitioners move into the area. Part of their religious ceremonies involves sacrificing live chickens. Killing chickens is not prohibited under the current law. (In rural areas, it is reasonable to assume that private citizens are killing and eating their chickens, etc.) During the next legislative session, the elected representatives pass a law that makes killing chickens a crime. A voodoo practitioner is then arrested for killing a chicken. The law will be found to be unconstitutional (a violation of the First Amendment) because it was passed with the specific purpose of impacting the religious ceremony of voodoo practitioners.