User:Assawyer/Sherbert v. Verner

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that denying state unemployment compensation restricted the free exercise of religion of a Seventh-day Adventist, who was required to work on her Sabbath Day, which is Saturday. The court also held that there is no compelling state interest in the statute which justifies the substantial infringement of Sherbert's Free Exercise right. Also, the Court further held that extending the benefits that Sunday Sabbath workers receieved to Sabbatarian workers would not violate the Establishment Clause.

Background
Appellant, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, Sabbath of her faith. 1 When she was unable to obtain other employment because from conscientious scruples she would not take Saturday work, 2 she filed a claim for [374 U.S. 398, 400]  unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act. 3 That law provides that, to be eligible for benefits, a claimant must be "able to work and . . . available for work"; and, further, [374 U.S. 398, 401]  that a claimant is ineligible for benefits "[i]f. . . he has failed, without good cause . . . to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employment office or the employer . . . ." The appellee Employment Security Commission, in administrative proceedings under the statute, found that appellant's restriction upon her availability for Saturday work brought her within the provision disqualifying for benefits insured workers who fail, without good cause, to accept "suitable work when offered. . . by the employment office or the employer . . ." The Commission's finding was sustained by the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County. That court's judgment was in turn affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which rejected appellant's contention that, as applied to her, the disqualifying provisions of the South Carolina statute abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion secured under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Supreme Court held specifically that appellant's ineligibility infringed no constitutional liberties because such a construction of the statute "places no restriction upon the appellant's freedom of religion nor does it in any way prevent her in the exercise of her right and freedom to observe her religious beliefs in accordance with the dictates of her conscience." 240 S. C. 286, 303-304, 125 S. E. 2d 737, 746. 4 We noted probable [374 U.S. 398, 402]  jurisdiction of appellant's appeal. 371 U.S. 938. We reverse the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Sherbert Test
The Court's decision created the Sherbert Test, a four-part test which is used to determine if an individual's right to the free exercise of their religion has been violated by the State.

The following, if all true, demonstrates that a person's Free Exercise rights have been violated by the State:
 * a person has a claim involving a sincerely held religious belief, and
 * a government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
 * that the government has not acted in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
 * that the government has not pursued said interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

Limiting of the Sherbert Test
During the in the 1980s, the Court sharply curtailed the Sherbert Test, culminating with the landmark case Employment Division v. Smith,494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Smith, the Court held that free exercise exemptions were not permitted from generally applicable laws. In response to the Smith decision, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to reinstate the Sherbert Test.

In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court found that RFRA, as applied to the Free Exercise Clause, impermissibly interfered with the judiciary's sole power to interpret the Constitution. However, in Gonzales v. UDV, 546 U.S. ___ (2006), the Court upheld RFRA as applied to other federal statutes. In UDV, the court applied the Sherbert Test and found that the action in question--use of a Schedule I drug in a religious ritual--was protected. Currently, it appears that the Sherbert Test is applicable only to those state laws that affect unemployment compensation where the individual did not become unemployed as the result of criminal conduct.

External link

 * 374 U.S. 398 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.