Simone Lawson
The First Amendment is important in the case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), which ruled that the state's law served a legitimate public interest in combating drug problems and Smith's free exercise rights were not violated. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that Smith's free exercise rights were not violated by denying him unemployment benefits as his use of peyote constituted work-related misconduct. The case of Hawke v. Smith (1920) challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the state constitution of Ohio, which allowed the state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments to be challenged by a petition signed by six percent of Ohio voters. The Court ruled that Ohio voters could not overturn the state legislature's approval of the Eighteenth Amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Case Name | United States v. Smith |
| Amendment | Sixth Amendment |
| Description | The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them and to cross-examine those witnesses. |
| Related Cases | Chapman v. California, Maryland v. Craig, Crawford v. Washington, United States v. Gaddis, United States v. Cabrera-Frattini, McMann v. Richardson, Blakely v. Washington |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The First Amendment
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court changed religious free exercise law by ruling that generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
The case involved Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who were fired from their jobs as private drug rehabilitation counsellors for ingesting peyote as a sacrament of the Native American Church. When Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits, the Employment Division denied their request because they had violated a state criminal statute. Smith then brought suit against the Employment Division and won his case in the lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that Smith's and Black's free exercise rights were not violated.
Justice Antonin Scalia, delivering the opinion of the Court, held that the denial of unemployment benefits to a member of the Native American Church for using the illegal drug peyote in the practice of his religion was not a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Scalia wrote that there are two types of free exercise cases: hybrid and pure. In hybrid cases, the Supreme Court used the strict scrutiny standard, in which the state must show that it has a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. Hybrid cases involve a constitutional right coupled with another fundamental right; for example, parental rights plus a First Amendment right, as in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).
In purely religious cases, the Court used the valid secular policy test, in which the state has a lighter burden in demonstrating that the law has a legitimate governmental interest and is neutrally applied. The Court held that Smith was a purely religious case, as it only involved violating a criminal statute. Using the valid secular policy test, the Court held that combating a national drug problem was a legitimate governmental interest and that the law was neutrally applied to all citizens of Oregon.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in concurrence that the strict scrutiny standard should be used in all free exercise clause cases, claiming that the state's interest in safety, health, and order would pass this standard. However, several liberal justices dissented, with Justice Harry A. Blackmun arguing that the Court had developed a consistent and exacting standard to test the constitutionality of a state statute that burdens the free exercise of religion.
In another case, Smith v. United States (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that a legislature's definition of community standards regarding obscenity does not govern a juror's interpretation of such standards. The case involved the sending of obscene materials through the mail, and the Court affirmed that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment.
Impeachment Clause: The Constitution's Ultimate Safety Net
You may want to see also
Free exercise rights
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court ruled that the state's law served a legitimate public interest in combating drug problems and Smith's free exercise rights were not violated.
Smith and his colleague Galen Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization for ingesting peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related "misconduct".
The State Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the denials violated the respondents' First Amendment free exercise rights. The State Supreme Court affirmed, but the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a determination of whether sacramental peyote use is proscribed by the State's controlled substance law.
Justice Scalia wrote that there have been two types of free exercise cases: hybrid and pure. In hybrid cases, the Supreme Court used the strict scrutiny standard, in which the state must show that it has a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. Hybrid cases involve a constitutional right coupled with another fundamental right. In purely religious cases, the Court used the valid secular policy test, in which the state has a lighter burden in demonstrating that the law has a legitimate governmental interest and is neutrally applied.
The Court held that Smith was a purely religious case, because it only involved violating a criminal statute. Using the valid secular policy test, the Court held that combating a national drug problem was a legitimate governmental interest and that the law was neutrally applied to all citizens of Oregon.
The case of Employment Division v. Smith set a precedent that a law is constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause if it is facially neutral and generally applied.
Amendment Power: Voting Age Lowered to 18
You may want to see also
The right to review
The controversy arose when the Ohio legislature ratified the 18th Amendment, and before the ninety-day waiting period had passed, the Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, declared the amendment to be in effect. A petition was then signed by at least six percent of voters, and in the referendum, a majority of Ohio voters voted against prohibition, creating a conflict. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Ohio voters could not overturn the state legislature's approval of the 18th Amendment, setting a precedent regarding the right to review and the power of state legislatures in the process of ratifying federal amendments.
In another case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause was at the centre of the dispute. The case revolved around Alfred L. Smith and his sacramental use of peyote, a hallucinogenic substance, in the context of his religious practices as a member of the Native American Church. Smith was denied unemployment benefits by the state of Oregon due to his violation of state criminal statutes regarding drug use. The Supreme Court ruled that the state's interest in combating drug problems took precedence and that Smith's free exercise rights were not violated.
This case highlighted the tension between religious freedom and the enforcement of neutrally applied criminal laws. The Court's decision emphasised that generally applicable laws that do not specifically target religious practices do not inherently violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The right to review the constitutionality of laws impacting religious practices was exercised, with the Court's ruling impacting the protection of religious liberty.
In summary, the right to review is integral to both cases involving Smith. In Hawke v. Smith, the focus was on the right of states and their people to review and potentially challenge the ratification of federal amendments, with the Supreme Court affirming the power of state legislatures. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the review centred on the interpretation of the First Amendment and the balance between religious freedom and criminal statutes, resulting in a significant shift in religious free exercise law.
The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel
You may want to see also
Explore related products
State vs federal interests
I found information relating to two cases involving Smith: Hawke v. Smith and Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.
Hawke v. Smith
Hawke v. Smith was a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the state constitution of Ohio. This case concerned state versus federal interests, as it pertained to the state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments. The case questioned whether a state had the right to reserve for its people the ability to review its legislature's ratification of federal amendments. The Court ruled that Ohio voters could not overturn the state legislature's approval of the Eighteenth Amendment.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
This case involved the First Amendment and the free exercise clause. The Supreme Court ruled that the state's law served a legitimate public interest in combating drug problems and that Smith's free exercise rights were not violated. The Court held that the state had a compelling interest in regulating peyote use by its citizens and that accommodating Smith's religiously motivated conduct would "unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest". This case created national attention, leading to strengthened protection for Native American religious practices.
State vs. Federal Interests
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. In the Employment Division case, the Court held that generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause. However, this case also highlights the tension between state and federal interests, as it pertains to religious liberty and state criminal statutes. The Court's ruling affirmed the state's interest in regulating peyote use, despite its religious significance for Native American practices.
The Hawke v. Smith case also showcases the interplay between state and federal interests, as it questioned the role of state legislatures and the people's right to review federal amendments. The Court's ruling affirmed the primacy of state legislatures in ratifying federal amendments, without requiring the consent of the people.
Amendment History: The 19th Amendment's Adoption
You may want to see also
The definition of 'state legislature'
The term "state legislature" refers to the legislative body of any of a country's 50 states. Each state has a different formal name for its legislature. State legislatures are elected positions, and they are responsible for creating laws and approving budgets for state governments. They can also establish government agencies, set policies, and approve their budgets. State legislatures also have the power to regulate businesses and courts within their jurisdiction, including determining court fees and attorney conduct.
In the context of the Hawke v. Smith case, the definition of "state legislature" was important in determining whether a state had the right to reserve for its people the right to review its legislature's ratification of federal amendments. The case centred on a provision in the Ohio state constitution that allowed the state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments to be challenged by a petition signed by six percent of Ohio voters. The controversy arose when the state legislature ratified the 18th Amendment, but before the ninety-day waiting period had passed, a majority of Ohio voters voted against prohibition in a referendum, seemingly invalidating the passage of the amendment.
The prohibitionists in the case argued that the Constitution provided for the ratification of federal amendments by state legislatures, and it did not include any mention of the people's right to review such amendments. On the other hand, opponents argued that the Constitution did not define what constituted a state legislature, leaving it up to each state to decide. In the case of Ohio, this meant that the "state legislature" was limited by the requirement to obtain the approval of the people of the state.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that Ohio voters could not overturn the state legislature's approval of the 18th Amendment. This case highlighted the importance of defining the term "state legislature" and the powers associated with it in the context of ratifying federal amendments.
The structure of state legislatures varies, with 49 states having bicameral legislatures, consisting of two separate chambers or "houses". The smaller chamber is typically called the "'Senate' or "upper house", while the larger chamber is called the "'House of Representatives' in 41 states, the "'Assembly'" in five states, and the "'House of Delegates'" in three states. Members of the larger chamber usually serve for terms of two years and have the power to initiate taxing legislation and write articles of impeachment.
In some states, the legislative session, or the period of active lawmaking, only occurs every other year, making the role of state legislator more part-time or seasonal. This has led to the concept of a "'citizen legislature', where legislators have other jobs for most of the year and only engage in official duties during the legislative session.
The Fourteenth Amendment: A Constitutional Addition in 1868
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Hawke v. Smith case challenged a provision in the state constitution of Ohio that allowed state legislature's ratification of federal constitutional amendments to be challenged by a petition signed by six percent of Ohio voters.
On June 1, 1920, the Court ruled that Ohio voters could not overturn the state legislature's approval of the Eighteenth Amendment.
The First Amendment is important in this case as the Supreme Court ruled that the state's law served a legitimate public interest in combating drug problems and Smith's and Black's free exercise rights were not violated.
The Supreme Court changed religious free exercise law dramatically by ruling that generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
