Search & Navigate                    Glossary                    Congress                    Resources & Videos                    Act                    About                    
Full name: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. Alfred Smith
Anthony KennedySandra Day O'ConnorWilliam RehnquistAntonin ScaliaJohn Paul StevensByron WhiteHarry BlackmunWilliam J. Brennan, Jr.Thurgood Marshall Note: Court justices do not represent any political party. The color of each judge's name represents the political party of the president who appointed the judge.
Click here for a list of all Supreme Court justices
1993 (HR-1308)
What was this case about?
The Supreme Court ruled that a state could fire and deny unemployment benefits to an employee who violated a state drug law - even if the act was part of a religious ceremony.
This was the first state unemployment case in which the Supreme Court ruled against someone practicing their religion.
How did this case get to the Supreme Court?
Two counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic were fired because they had used the drug peyote as part of a religious ceremony. The state of Oregon denied them unemployment compensation because the firing was considered to be work-related misconduct.
They sued, and the Oregon Supreme Court decided in their favor, stating that their unemployment compensation had been conditional on their willingness to not practice their religion.
What the court decided
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Oregon Supreme Court's decision, ruling that Oregon's law was constitutional because it applied to all citizens and was not directed at a specific religious practice. Since the drug use was justifiably prohibited by law, the denial of benefits also was justifiable.
What does the ruling mean?
The ruling differentiated between laws that specifically prohibited the exercise of religion and those that did not intend to interfere with a religion - but had the incidental effect of doing so by their nature.
Any law that was directed toward the practice of a religion would be unconstitutional. But a law that was generally applied to the population - yet impacted the religious practices of some - would be allowable under the Constitution.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion that allowing exceptions for religions "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.... (it would create) a private right to ignore generally applicable laws." However, if a law would restrict a religion - it must use the least restrictive way to meet the government's interest.