Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on "Oregon v. Smith, et al". Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 8 page paper summarizes the case Employment Division v Smith 494 US 872 (1990) and argues that the Supreme Court's ruling was in error. Bibliography lists four sources.
Page Count:
8 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVORSmth.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
that considers the right of states to limit the religious practices of their citizens in accordance with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. This paper summarizes the case
and argues that the Supreme Courts ruling was in error. Discussion In Oregon v. Smith, et al., a case that was decided in 1990, Oregon state employees Alfred Smith and
Galen Black were fired from their positions as counselors at a private drug rehabilitation company because they had used peyote during a ceremony of their Native American Church (Ogden v.
Smith, et al). Peyote is a strong hallucinogen, but its use by Native Americans as a sacrament has been recognized for some time. After losing their positions, they applied for
unemployment insurance which was denied by the State of Oregon under a law that disqualifies employees from receiving benefits if they have been terminated for "misconduct" (Oregon v. Smith, et
al). Smith and Black appealed their case, stating that "the denials violated respondents First Amendment free exercise rights" and the State Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision; this
reversal was later affirmed by the Oregon State Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently vacated that judgment (Oregon v. Smith, et al). It sent the case back to
Oregon for a determination of whether or not the use of peyote in church sacraments "is proscribed by the States controlled substance law, which makes it a felony to knowingly
or intentionally possess the drug" (Oregon v. Smith, et al). Pending that ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide on whether or not the Constitution protects such drug use
(Oregon v. Smith, et al). When it reviewed the case that was remanded to it, the Oregon State Supreme Court held that "sacramental peyote use violated, and was not excepted
...