Citation network
Sherbert Vs. Verner
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 17, 1963
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 398 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
U.S. 398 (1963) Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U. S. 296 , 310 U. S. 303 . Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. WatkinsSearch
-
or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. RhodeSearch
-
nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Follett v. McCormickSearch
-
Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e.g., Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
Cleveland v. UnitedSearch
-
American Page 374 U. S. 405 Communications Assn. v. DoudsSearch
-
Hannegan v. EsquireSearch
-
Inc., 327 U. S. 146 , 327 U. S. 155 -156. For example, in Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
In Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
foreclosed by the prohibition against judicial inquiry into the truth or falsity of religious beliefs, United States v. BallardSearch
-
Martin v. StruthersSearch
-
dissimilar to the interests which were found to justify the less direct burden upon religious practices in Braunfeld v. BrownSearch
-
institutions which it is the object of the Establishment Clause to forestall. See School District of Abington Township v. SchemppSearch
-
Everson v. BoardSearch
-
of conscience or religion has been held to be a basis of disqualification for benefits. See, e.g., Judson Mills v. SouthSearch
-
Stone Mfg. Co. v. SouthSearch
-
decisions of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Nothing we have found in the statute or in the cited decisions, cf. Lee v. SpartanSearch
-
U. S. 382 , 339 U. S. 402 . Cf. Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
which have been invalidated because of their tendency to inhibit constitutionally protected activity, Steinberg v. UnitedSearch
-
Syrek v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Fino v. MarylandSearch
-
Chicago Housing Authority v. BlackmanSearch
-
Housing Authority of Los Angeles v. CordovaSearch
-
Lawson v. HousingSearch
-
Danskin v. SanSearch
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. BoardSearch
-
Swenson v. MichiganSearch
-
Tary v. BoardSearch
-
of Review, 161 Ohio St. 251, 119 N.E.2d 56. Cf. Kut v. AlbersSearch
-
Super Markets, Inc., 146 Ohio St. 522, 66 N.E.2d 643, appeal dismissed sub nom. Kut v. BureauSearch
-
These considerations also distinguish the quite different case of Flemming v. NestorSearch
-
benefits may have had upon the disqualified class. See 363 U.S. at 363 U. S. 612 . And compare Torcaso v. WatkinsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial