Study Notes on Wisconsin v. Yoder and Employment Division v. Smith

Transition from Earl Warren's court to Warren Burger's leadership as Chief Justice.
Focus on how Burger Court applied and possibly reinterpreted standards established in prior cases (e.g., Sherbert v. Verner).

Citation: 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Vote Breakdown: 6 in favor (Blackmun, Brennan, Burger, Marshall, Stewart, White), 1 dissenting (Douglas).
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion.
Concurring opinions by Justices Stewart and White; dissenting in part by Justice Douglas.
Not participating: Powell and Rehnquist.

Wisconsin's compulsory education law mandates children attend school until age sixteen.
The Old Order Amish community conflicts with this due to their beliefs:
- Reject formal education post-eighth grade to avoid exposure to worldly influences (attitudes, goals, and values contrary to their beliefs).
- Have historically favored home education in alignment with their agrarian values.
Background: National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom (NCARF) formed in 1967, aiming to legally support Amish rights.
Specific case: Amish parents, including Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy, faced fines for non-compliance with education law. They appealed and won at the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Compulsory education laws have deep historical roots and are consistently upheld by courts as valid.
Prince v. Massachusetts (1943): State's compelling interest in preventing ignorance among children.
Argument: Without formal education, Amish children would struggle in secular society.

Law infringes upon their First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion.
Argument for deviation from Prince v. Massachusetts: Should consider Sherbert v. Verner as the relevant authority.
They maintain that their home education adequately prepares children for their agrarian lifestyle while not significantly conflicting with the state's educational goals.

The opinion reasserts the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as it pertains to the Amish.
Emphasizes the importance of the Amish religious convictions not permitting formal schooling beyond the eighth grade.
The Amish objection is deeply rooted in their religious beliefs about education regarding worldly influences and values.
The Court evaluated whether the state could compel attendance beyond eighth grade and found it impermissible due to the grave danger to free exercise of religion.
Forcing education upon Amish children would undermine their religious development and the community's values.

The Amish do not object to basic education (grades 1-8) because it aligns with their community values but see high school as adverse.
“The essence of all that has been said and written on this subject is that only those interests of the highest order can overbalance legitimate claims of free exercise of religion.”
The education beyond eighth grade is seen as leading children away from their communal life, which they view as essential for their future roles as farmers or homemakers.
The judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was affirmed based on these arguments and perspectives cited.

Citation: 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, with concurring opinion by Justice O'Connor and dissenting opinions by Justices Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall.

Central issue revolves around the illegal use of peyote by members of the Native American Church as part of religious practice.
Respondents Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired for using peyote during a religious ceremony, subsequently denied unemployment benefits.

The state maintained a compelling interest in regulating drug use, presenting the argument that accommodating religiously motivated substance use would compromise public health policies.

Cited precedents like Sherbert v. Verner to claim eligibility for unemployment benefits, arguing the drug's use was crucial to their religious practices.

Justice Scalia highlighted that free exercise does not exempt individuals from complying with neutral and generally applicable laws.
Established that the state had an interest in maintaining drug prohibition across the board.
Overturned previous precedents (Sherbert test) regarding religious exemptions, asserting that the First Amendment does not provide such protections for persons whose actions are uniform with generally applicable laws.

Rejected the notion that exemptions must be made based on religious motivations when the law is general and neutral. Established that compliance with valid laws is essential regardless of religious beliefs.
Critics voiced concern that this could allow governments to infringe upon minority religious practices without consequences.
The ruling sparked debates on its implications for religious freedoms and protections offered by law, challenging the previous balance established in cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder.

Both cases exemplify the evolving interpretation of free exercise rights in light of state interests.
Wisconsin v. Yoder stands as a reinforcement of religious freedoms against state educational regulations, while Employment Division v. Smith represents a significant shift toward limiting those freedoms under the guise of generally applicable laws.
Subsequent legal discourse has focused on how these rulings will interact and influence future cases involving religious freedoms in a diverse and increasingly regulated society.