The Employment Division v. Smith case from 1990 was a landmark Supreme Court decision that has been widely criticized. This case involved two Native American men, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who were fired from their jobs after testing positive for peyote, a hallucinogen used as part of a religious ceremony in the Native American Church. The two men filed a complaint against their employer and the Oregon Employment Division, claiming that the Oregon law prohibiting the use of peyote violated their right to practice their religion.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon law was constitutional, and that the state had the right to prohibit the use of peyote even if it was used for religious purposes. This decision was highly controversial, as it effectively stated that the government could infringe upon religious freedom as long as it was doing so for a “rational” reason. This ruling contradicted the Court’s previous decision in Sherbert v. Verner, which held that the government could not infringe upon religious freedom unless it could demonstrate a “compelling” state interest.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Smith case has been widely criticized as a violation of religious freedom. The court’s ruling effectively stated that the state could prohibit the use of a drug, even if it was done as part of a religious ceremony. This meant that the government could effectively dictate what religious practices were permissible and which were not. Furthermore, the court failed to acknowledge that religious freedom is a fundamental right that should not be infringed upon unless there is a compelling state interest.
This ruling was widely seen as an erosion of religious freedom and a violation of the First Amendment. Furthermore, this decision has been criticized for its potential to be used to discriminate against minority religions. By allowing the state to prohibit the use of certain drugs, even if they are used for religious purposes, the Smith decision opens the door for the government to target minority religions. For example, the state could potentially use this decision to prohibit certain religious practices that involve the use of certain substances, such as the use of ayahuasca in certain Amazonian religions. This could effectively limit the religious freedom of minority religions and would be a violation of the First Amendment.
In conclusion, the Employment Division v. Smith case from 1990 is a highly controversial decision that has been widely criticized for its potential to violate religious freedom. By allowing the state to prohibit the use of certain drugs, even if they are used for religious purposes, this decision opens the door for the government to target minority religions and limit their religious freedom. This decision was seen as a violation of the First Amendment and has been widely criticized as a dangerous precedent that could further erode religious freedom.
