Case Name

Statute

Conduct

Neutral?

Generally Applicable?

Standard of Review? The Court applied applied scrutiny and determined that SC had no compelling and narrowly tailored interest that justified its substantial infringement of Sherbert's right to free exercise. Distinguish on the Pierce factor other fundamental right, reason for strict scrutiny even though neutral & GA The Court reviewed this case on the basis of strict scrutiny

Sherbert

Denied unemployment after quitting her job rather than working on Saturday, her day of worship.

YES

The statute required individualized assessment for the reasons a person was fired, and granted exemptions. The statute granted exemptions for those who missed work on Sundays to practice their religion to still receive benefits, but failed to be generally applicable b/c P was denied an exemption and thus forced to choose between the exercise of her religious beliefs and receiving her benefits.

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Neutral nondiscriminatory compulsory edu law requiring children to have a min of 2 yrs of HS or till 16.

Amish family attempted to withhold their child from attending school after 14 Govt drug counselors fired for using peyote in a Native American Religious ceremony, which was illegal under Oregon state law, and violated their employers rules. When they applied to the state, they were denied unemploy compensation

YES

YES

Employment Division v. Smith

YES

YES: 1) Unlike Sherbert this statute did not require individualized assessment. 2) There were no secular exceptions for the violation of the drug law, which would allow reinstatement of benefits. No Sunday exemption, nor a good cause exemption. There was only a uniform denial for misconduct met by underlying criminal activity. While there happened to be an incidental effect on this religious practice, there was no application of the statute which would have excepted any other group for the same conduct.

Sherbert NEUTRAL GENERALLY APPLICABLE

statute was neutral

The statute required individualized assessment for the reasons a person was fired, and granted exemptions. The statute granted exemptions for those who missed work on Sundays to practice their religion to still receive benefits, but failed to be generally applicable b/c P was denied an exemption and thus forced to choose between the exercise of her religious beliefs and receiving her benefits

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court applied applied scrutiny and determined that SC had no compelling and narrowly tailored interest that justified its substantial infringement of Sherbert's right to free exercise. .

EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH NEUTRAL statute was neutral GENERALLY statute was generally appliable APPLICABLE
statute was generally applicable i) unlike Sherbert, the statute did not require individualized assessment (no sunday exemption; no "good cause" exemption) (there was no application of the statute that would have excepted another group for the same conduct) ii) unlike Sherbert, the underlying conduct was criminal and impaired employee performace (in Smith, unemployment benefits were denied on the basis of conduct that was criminal and that impaired the performance of the employees, indicating that the sole purpose of the statute was not to target religious conduct, whereas in Sherbert, benefits were denied on the basis of benign conduct)
No Sunday exemption, nor a good cause exemption. There was only a uniform denial for misconduct met by underlying criminal activity. While there happened to be an incidental effect on this religious practice, there was no application of the statute which would have excepted any other group for the same conduct.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

the Court applied rational basis review to determine that OR was permitted to deny the Native American Church members unemployment compensation.