Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
The 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith established a precedent regarding the intersection of neutral, generally applicable laws and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's ruling determined that laws prohibiting conduct, even if that conduct is religiously motivated, are permissible, provided the laws are neutral and of general applicability. This decision consequently narrowed the scope of protection afforded by the Free Exercise Clause.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
The 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith significantly altered the understanding of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's decision established a precedent that neutral laws of general applicability are not subject to strict scrutiny, even if those laws incidentally burden religious practices. This ruling limited the scope of protection previously afforded under the Free Exercise Clause, impacting cases where religious practices conflicted with otherwise valid secular regulations. The Court's reasoning prioritized the government's interest in maintaining a consistent legal framework over the potential infringement on religious freedom in specific instances. This decision continues to be debated and has led to subsequent legislative efforts to clarify and possibly modify the balance between religious freedom and governmental authority.
The Supreme Court's 1990 Peyote Case
In 1990, the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between a neutral law and religious freedom. The Court ruled that laws prohibiting the use of peyote remain valid, even if those laws impact religious practices. This decision showed limits to the protection of religious freedom under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The ruling emphasized that generally applicable laws—those not specifically targeting a religion—can restrict religious practices if they serve a legitimate government interest.
The Supreme Court and Peyote
In 1990, the Supreme Court made a decision about a law that banned the use of peyote. Peyote is a plant sometimes used in religious ceremonies. The Court said that this law was fair, even though it affected people's religious practices. The Court explained that the law applied to everyone and wasn't targeting any specific religion. This means that even though people use peyote for their religion, they still have to follow the law. The Court's ruling showed that there are limits to how much the government must protect people's religious freedom.