Employment Division v. Smith
GPTKB entity
Statements (56)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:aftermath |
Led to debates on religious freedom and government regulation.
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Details on the denial of unemployment benefits.
Summary of the case's implications for religious freedom. Reaffirmed the state's ability to regulate unemployment benefits. Affected_future_interpretations_of_the_Free_Exercise_Clause. |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Civil Rights case
88-1213 |
| gptkbp:citedBy |
494 U.S. 872
|
| gptkbp:court |
5-4 decision
Decided on April 17, 1990. Ruling favored the state over individual religious practices. Justices_Rehnquist,_Scalia,_Kennedy,_Thomas,_and_O'Connor. |
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
April 17, 1990 |
| gptkbp:filedIn |
November 6, 1989
|
| gptkbp:historicalContext |
Part of the broader discussion on religious liberties.
|
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
Originated from a dispute over unemployment benefits.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Employment Division v. Smith
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced_the_Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Justice Harry Blackmun
Argued for stronger protections for religious practices. Resulted in a significant ruling on religious exercise. Majority opinion focused on the neutrality of the law. Reviewed_by_the_Supreme_Court Justices_Blackmun,_Brennan,_Marshall,_and_Stevens. Outcome_influenced_future_Supreme_Court_cases. |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
Analyzed_under_the_Free_Exercise_Clause.
|
| gptkbp:legalEvent |
Examined within the context of religious freedom.
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
gptkb:First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Free Exercise Clause Neutral laws do not require a compelling interest. Set limitations on religious exemptions. Unemployment benefits denied Established a standard for evaluating free exercise claims. Influenced state laws regarding unemployment benefits. Debate over the balance between state interests and religious freedoms. Examined within the framework of constitutional law. Heard_by_the_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:notableEvent |
Led to the introduction of RFRA.
|
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
Analyzed for its implications on civil liberties.
Considered_a_landmark_case_in_First_Amendment_jurisprudence. Involved_Native_American_religious_practices. Significant_for_its_interpretation_of_the_First_Amendment. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
State can deny unemployment benefits
|
| gptkbp:politicalAffiliation |
gptkb:Alfred_Smith
gptkb:Employment_Division_of_Oregon |
| gptkbp:politicalParty |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
Emphasized the importance of neutral laws. |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set a precedent for future cases regarding religious practices.
Employment_Division_v._Smith_established_that_neutral_laws_of_general_applicability_do_not_violate_the_Free_Exercise_Clause. |
| gptkbp:publicAccess |
Controversial among religious groups.
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
gptkb:Sherbert_v._Verner
Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah |
| gptkbp:significance |
Limits on religious freedom claims
|