Citation network
Employment Div. Vs. Smith.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 17, 1990
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
- Relied / Followed
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 872 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Employment Div. v. SmithSearch
-
U.S. 872 (1990) Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. SmithSearch
-
constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional Page 494 U. S. 873 protections. See, e.g., Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
from the Oregon law cannot be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in the line of cases following Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. CommissionerSearch
-
justify the burden that disqualification imposed on respondents' religious practice. Citing our decisions in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 398 (1963), and Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
U. S. 707 (1981), the court concluded that respondents were entitled to payment of unemployment benefits. Smith v. EmploymentSearch
-
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. SmithSearch
-
certiorari. 489 U.S. 1077 (1989). II Respondents' claim for relief rests on our decisions in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
-
Thomas v. ReviewSearch
-
Board, Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, and Hobbie v. UnemploymentSearch
-
applicable to the States by incorporation into Page 494 U. S. 877 the Fourteenth Amendment, see Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
U.S. at 374 U. S. 402 . The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see Torcaso v. WatkinsSearch
-
U. S. 488 (1961), punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false, United States v. BallardSearch
-
U. S. 86 -88 (1944), impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, see McDaniel v. PatySearch
-
Fowler v. RhodeSearch
-
Larson v. ValenteSearch
-
or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma, see Presbyterian Church v. HullSearch
-
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. MilivojevichSearch
-
applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U. S. 131 , 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. GobitisSearch
-
Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. LeeSearch
-
Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. GobitisSearch
-
supra, 310 U.S. at 310 U. S. 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. MassachusettsSearch
-
Id. at 321 U. S. 171 . In Braunfeld v. BrownSearch
-
the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. In Gillette v. UnitedSearch
-
generally applicable regulatory law that compelled activity forbidden by an individual's religion was United States v. LeeSearch
-
Id. at 455 U. S. 260 . Cf. Hernandez v. CommissionerSearch
-
Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press, see Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Follett v. McCormickSearch
-
U. S. 573 (1944) (same), or the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. YoderSearch
-
compelled expression, decided exclusively upon free speech grounds, have also involved freedom of religion, cf. Wooley v. MaynardSearch
-
West Virginia Board of Education v. BarnetteSearch
-
challenge on freedom of association grounds would likewise be reinforced by Free Exercise Clause concerns. Cf. Roberts v. UnitedSearch
-
Gillette v. UnitedSearch
-
a Page 494 U. S. 883 religious exemption must be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in Sherbert v. VernerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial