Employment Division v. Smith
E14513
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
All labels observed (3)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T61139 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Employment Division v. Smith Context triple: [Free Exercise Clause, interpretedInCase, Employment Division v. Smith]
-
A.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
D.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Employment Division v. Smith Target entity description: Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
-
A.
Katzenbach v. McClung
Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Craig v. Boren
Craig v. Boren is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that established intermediate scrutiny as the standard for evaluating gender-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
D.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States is a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by affirming Congress’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations under the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
free exercise of religion case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| hasAreaOfLaw |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment law
constitutional law ⓘ religious liberty law ⓘ |
| hasCategory |
1990 in United States case law
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on freedom of religion ⓘ United States Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment ⓘ |
| hasChiefJusticeAtDecision | William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| hasCitation | 494 U.S. 872 ⓘ |
| hasConcurrenceBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
surface form:
Harry Blackmun
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| hasConstitutionalProvision |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Free Exercise Clause ⓘ |
| hasCountry |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| hasCourt | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| hasDecisionDate | 1990 ⓘ |
| hasDecisionYear | 1990 ⓘ |
| hasDissentBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
surface form:
Harry Blackmun
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| hasFact |
Oregon law criminalized possession of peyote
ⓘ
respondents ingested peyote as part of a religious ceremony ⓘ respondents were members of the Native American Church ⓘ |
| hasFullCitation |
Employment Division v. Smith
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
|
| hasHolding | The Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes conduct that his religion prescribes. ⓘ |
| hasImpact |
narrowed judicial protection for religiously motivated conduct under the Free Exercise Clause
ⓘ
prompted legislative responses to restore stronger protections for religious exercise ⓘ shifted Free Exercise analysis away from strict scrutiny for neutral, generally applicable laws ⓘ |
| hasIssue | whether Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to workers fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Oregon ⓘ |
| hasKeyConcept |
compelling interest test
ⓘ
incidental burden on religion ⓘ neutral law of general applicability ⓘ strict scrutiny ⓘ unemployment benefits and religious conduct ⓘ |
| hasLegalPrinciple |
neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally burden religion do not violate the Free Exercise Clause
ⓘ
strict scrutiny is not required for every neutral, generally applicable law that burdens religious practice ⓘ |
| hasLowerCourt | Oregon Supreme Court ⓘ |
| hasMajorityAuthor | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| hasOutcome |
Oregon Employment Department
ⓘ
surface form:
Oregon was allowed to deny unemployment benefits to the respondents
|
| hasPetitioner | Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon ⓘ |
| hasProceduralHistory | affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Oregon Supreme Court ⓘ |
| hasRespondent |
Alfred Leo Smith
ⓘ
Galen Black ⓘ |
| hasSubsequentLegislationInfluenced |
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
ⓘ
surface form:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts ⓘ |
| hasVote | 6–3 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Employment Division v. Smith Description of subject: Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
Referenced by (16)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.