In Oregon v. Smith, what did the Supreme Court rule about free exercise of religion?

In Oregon v. Smith, what did the Supreme Court rule about free exercise of religion?

• A. The firing of an employee for peyote use violated the Free Exercise Clause.
• B. States cannot limit free exercise of religion under any circumstances.
• C. States may limit free exercise of religion if it involves illegal activities.
• D. The decision required strict scrutiny for religious exemptions.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is that the Supreme Court allowed government to enforce general laws even when they burden religious practices, as long as the law is neutral and generally applicable. In Oregon v. Smith, peyote use for religious ceremonies was illegal, and the law banning it was neutral and generally applicable. The Court held that denying unemployment benefits to workers who used peyote did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the law isn’t aimed at religion and applies to everyone who uses illegal drugs. This means states may limit free exercise of religion when the activity involved is illegal under the law. The other options don’t fit because they either suggest religion must always be shielded from general laws (which Smith rejects) or invoke strict scrutiny (which Smith did not apply).

The key idea is that the Supreme Court allowed government to enforce general laws even when they burden religious practices, as long as the law is neutral and generally applicable. In Oregon v. Smith, peyote use for religious ceremonies was illegal, and the law banning it was neutral and generally applicable. The Court held that denying unemployment benefits to workers who used peyote did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the law isn’t aimed at religion and applies to everyone who uses illegal drugs. This means states may limit free exercise of religion when the activity involved is illegal under the law.

The other options don’t fit because they either suggest religion must always be shielded from general laws (which Smith rejects) or invoke strict scrutiny (which Smith did not apply).