This case significantly narrowed the grounds upon which a person could claim a religious-based exemption from a criminal or civil law. Oregon law controlled peyote as a Schedule I controlled drug, making possession and use a felony. Smith and Black were employed by a firm that required drug testing, which they failed, due to peyote use that was part of an established Native American Church ritual in which they participated. In Oregon, dismissal from a job for violation of a drug law was grounds for denial of unemployment benefits and Smith and Black were therefore denied compensation. The Court heard their claim that the religious basis of peyote use exempted them from the denial of unemployment benefits. In ruling, the Court first determined that free exercise of religion means the right to believe and profess freely, but that external acts can be regulated if the act harms the social order in spite of its status as a religiously-motivated act. The Court ruled that if the burden on the religious practice induced by a neutral law that is generally applicable is only incidental, (and does not intentionally target religious practice per se), then the state's burden is not necessarily an impermissible burden on religion. This means the government does not have a necessary burden to justify the regulation just because someone claims a religious right is burdened by it. In this case the Court severely limits the application of the Sherbert test to situations in which the state is making individualized judgments about unemployment compensation.
Opens in a new window