Citation network
Employment Div. Vs. Smith
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1988
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. 660 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Employment Div. v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. 660 (1988) Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon v. SmithSearch
-
The State Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that, although the benefits denials were proper under Oregon law, Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
U. S. 398 , and Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
since that question is relevant to the federal constitutional analysis. Although Sherbert, Thomas, and Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
P.2d 445, 448-449 (1986). Turning to the federal issue, the court reasoned that our decisions in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
U. S. 398 (1963), and Page 485 U. S. 666 Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
Id. at 374 U. S. 404 . In Sherbert, as in Thomas and Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have held that bigamy may be forbidden, even when the practice is dictated by sincere religious convictions. Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
see Hobbie, 480 U.S. at 480 U. S. 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. YoderSearch
-
within the meaning of the predecessor statute, State v. DownesSearch
-
is not now appropriate for us to decide whether the practice is protected by the Federal Constitution. See Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
Together with No. 86-947, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon, et al. v. BlackSearch
-
The Oregon Supreme Court stated in Sterling v. CuppSearch
-
State v. SotoSearch
-
government and several states exempt the religious use of peyote through caselaw, statute or regulation. See State v. WhittinghamSearch
-
People v. WoodySearch
-
Whitehorn v. StateSearch
-
Ore. 221, 225-227, 721 P.2d 451, 453-454 (1986), quoting People v. WoodySearch
-
In Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
was discharged because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. When the petitioner in Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
because his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of war materials. And in Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
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
-
is not totally free from legislative restrictions.' Braunfeld v. BrownSearch
-
so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e.g., Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
Cleveland v. UnitedSearch
-
the denial of unemployment benefits, found the State's interest indistinguishable from those asserted in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
U. S. 398 , 374 U. S. 403 (1963), and Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
cases, it held that the denial violated respondents' First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely. Smith v. EmploymentSearch
-
Black v. EmploymentSearch
-
at 374 U. S. 403 (citation omitted). In Thomas, supra, and again as recently as last Term, see Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
scrutiny, blindly accept the interest that the State asserts in court. See, e.g., Mississippi University for Women v. HoganSearch
-
Hampton v. MowSearch
-
court determination that a state legislature was actually motivated by a particular validating purpose, see Stone v. GrahamSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Employment Div. v. SmithSearch
-
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of the State of Oregon v. SmithSearch
-
and Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
Although Sherbert, Thomas, and Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial