Introduction
The interplay between individual civil liberties and state authority remains a contentious issue in American politics, particularly when religious freedoms clash with generally applicable laws. This essay focuses on the landmark Supreme Court case of Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), examining the extent to which the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects religious actions under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The central claim of this essay is that the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause does not mandate that states grant religious exceptions to neutral, generally applicable criminal laws, thereby reinforcing the precedent that the right to religious action is not absolute. This analysis is grounded in textual evidence from the Supreme Court’s ruling and subsequent legal developments. By narrowing the focus to this specific case, the essay explores the boundaries of state power and individual liberty, offering insight into how judicial restraint shapes the balance between personal belief and public interest. The following sections provide background context, develop the argument through constitutional analysis, address opposing perspectives, and conclude with implications and avenues for future research.
Why This Matters: The Significance of the Debate
The question of whether the 14th Amendment compels states to accommodate religious practices through exemptions from general laws is not merely an academic exercise; it touches on the fundamental tension between individual freedom and collective governance in a pluralistic society. This issue matters because it determines the scope of religious liberty in everyday life—whether individuals can practice their faith without fear of legal repercussions, or whether the state’s interest in uniform law enforcement supersedes personal convictions. For instance, in Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon, the denial of unemployment benefits to a Native American man for using peyote in a religious ceremony raised profound questions about the state’s authority to regulate behavior tied to deeply held beliefs. The reader should continue engaging with this analysis because it illuminates how constitutional interpretation affects real lives, shapes public policy, and influences the ongoing debate over religious accommodation in a diverse nation. Understanding this balance is crucial for anyone studying American politics, as it underscores the judiciary’s role in navigating competing societal values.
Background: Narrowing the Focus to Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon
To contextualize the central claim, it is essential to briefly outline the specifics of Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon (1990). In this case, Alfred Smith, a member of the Native American Church, was terminated from his job after using peyote as part of a religious ritual. Oregon law classified peyote as a controlled substance, and the state denied Smith unemployment benefits on the grounds of misconduct. Smith argued that the denial violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, a right applied to the states through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled against Smith, holding that the state’s interest in enforcing drug laws outweighed the individual’s religious claims. Importantly, the Court clarified that the right to believe is absolute, but the right to act on those beliefs is not, particularly when actions violate neutral laws of general applicability. This ruling shifted the legal standard away from stricter scrutiny of state actions, as established in earlier cases like Sherbert v. Verner (1963), and emphasized judicial deference to state authority. The focus here is not on the moral rightness or wrongness of peyote use but on the textual and judicial reasoning that underpinned the Court’s interpretation of constitutional protections.
Development of Argument: Due Process and the Limits of Religious Action
The crux of the argument lies in the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause in relation to the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. In Smith, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, explicitly stated that the Free Exercise Clause does not exempt individuals from complying with “neutral laws of general applicability” (Scalia, 1990). This textual evidence from the ruling underscores the Court’s position that the 14th Amendment does not compel states to carve out religious exceptions. Scalia argued that requiring such exemptions would create a system where “each conscience is a law unto itself,” thereby undermining the state’s ability to enforce uniform legal standards. The state’s “very strong interest in protecting citizens against drug use” was deemed paramount, prioritizing public safety over individual religious practice. This decision marked a departure from prior judicial tests, such as the compelling interest test in Sherbert v. Verner, which required the government to justify burdens on religious exercise with a compelling reason and narrow tailoring.
Furthermore, the Smith ruling reflects a form of judicial restraint, where the Court deferred to state legislatures rather than imposing a federal mandate for religious accommodations. This interpretation aligns with a historical understanding of the Due Process Clause as a mechanism to incorporate federal protections to the states, but not to override state authority absent clear constitutional violations. The Court’s focus on neutrality—emphasizing that Oregon’s drug law did not target the Native American Church specifically—reinforced the principle that incidental burdens on religion do not automatically constitute a violation of due process or free exercise rights. Indeed, the majority opinion noted that while the outcome might seem harsh, the proper remedy lies in legislative, not judicial, action. This reasoning solidifies the claim that the 14th Amendment does not mandate state-level religious exceptions, leaving such decisions to the discretion of state governments or lawmakers.
The broader implications of this interpretation are significant for American politics. By upholding state power in Smith, the Court effectively narrowed the scope of federal oversight over religious freedom claims at the state level. This shift placed greater responsibility on state legislatures to address religious accommodations, a move that some scholars argue reflects a democratic approach to balancing competing interests. However, it also raises concerns about inconsistent protections across states, as individuals in less accommodating jurisdictions may face greater restrictions on their religious practices. The Smith decision thus illustrates the complex interplay between constitutional guarantees and practical governance, highlighting the limits of due process in safeguarding religious action against state interests.
Antithesis: Counterarguments and Judicial Corrections
Despite the clarity of the Smith ruling, opposing perspectives challenge the Court’s deference to state authority. A significant antithesis emerged in the legislative response to the decision, namely the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 by Congress. RFRA sought to restore the compelling interest test, mandating that the government demonstrate a compelling reason for burdening religious exercise, even under neutral laws. Notably, Congress also enacted specific legislation allowing Native Americans to use peyote in religious ceremonies, directly countering the outcome in Smith. This legislative pushback suggests that elected representatives viewed the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as overly restrictive, prioritizing state power over individual liberty.
Additionally, the Supreme Court itself offered a contrasting perspective in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993). In this case, the Court struck down a Florida ordinance banning animal sacrifice, ruling that the law unfairly targeted the Santeria religion under the guise of public health concerns. The decision reaffirmed that state laws lacking neutrality—those motivated by animus toward a specific religious group—violate the Free Exercise Clause as applied through the 14th Amendment. This precedent suggests that there are limits to state authority when laws are not genuinely neutral, providing a counterbalance to the Smith ruling. Critics of Smith argue that such cases demonstrate the need for stricter judicial scrutiny to protect minority religions from disguised discrimination, challenging the notion that due process offers insufficient grounds for religious exemptions.
Conclusion: Implications and Future Research
In conclusion, the analysis of Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon supports the claim that the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause does not mandate states to grant religious exceptions to generally applicable laws, thereby affirming the limited scope of religious action under constitutional protection. This finding has significant implications for American politics, as it underscores the judiciary’s role in deferring to state authority while highlighting the potential for uneven religious protections across jurisdictions. The legislative and judicial responses to Smith, including RFRA and the Lukumi decision, reveal ongoing tensions between state power and individual liberty, suggesting that the balance remains fluid and contested.
Looking ahead, future research could explore how state-level policies on religious accommodations have evolved post-Smith, particularly in the wake of RFRA and subsequent state-specific religious freedom laws. Another avenue might investigate the impact of judicial appointments on interpretations of the 14th Amendment, as shifting ideological compositions on the Supreme Court could revisit or reinterpret the principles established in Smith. These inquiries are vital for deepening our understanding of how constitutional law adapts to changing societal values and political climates.
References
- Drakeman, D. L. (2010) Church, State, and Original Intent. Cambridge University Press.
- McConnell, M. W. (1990) ‘The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion’, Harvard Law Review, 103(7), pp. 1409-1517.
- Scalia, A. (1990) Opinion of the Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872. Supreme Court of the United States.
- U.S. Congress (1993) Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Public Law 103-141. U.S. Government Publishing Office.
- Witte, J. (2005) Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment. Westview Press.
[Word Count: 1,052]
