Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith
- Decided
- April 17, 1990
- Docket
- 88-1213
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,569 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, disapproved (9 of 68 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Steve Orlando Van Horne v. the State of Texas
What later courts said
- recognizing that “the exercise of religion often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts ... ’•’ — Prater v. City of Burnside (2002)
- recognizing that "the exercise of religion often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts ..." — Prater v. City Of Burnside (2002)
- holding that neutral, generally applicable laws may be applied to religious practices even when not supported by a compelling governmental interest — Moore v. Carwell (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*874] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to decide whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment permits the State of Oregon to include religiously inspired peyote use within the reach of its general criminal prohibition on use of that drug, and thus permits the State to deny unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of such religiously inspired use.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.