First Amendment Cases
There are several provisions in the First Amendment to the United States' constitution, all of which have been implemented in various court cases. In Engels v. Vitale, which centered around the legality of a mandated school prayer in New York state, many would perceive the issue as one of a "freedom of religion." More specifically, however, this case involved the First Amendment's clause that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which was applied to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and is quite distinct from the provision allowing the free exercise of religion.
In Oregon v Smith, it was determined that a state employee could indeed be terminated and denied unemployment benefits for the use of an illegal substance (in this case peyote) even when its use was part of a religious ceremony. This case does not involve the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but rather involves the right to freely exercise one's religion. This right to freely exercise one's religion has been asserted in other cases to allow otherwise illegal activity to take place in certain circumstances and situations.
The ruling in Engels v. Vitale, though hugely important in its effects, was relatively straightforward. Essentially, the Court determined that prayer was essentially and inherently religious by the very nature of its being a prayer, and that thus no state (due to the Fourteenth Amendment's extension of federal restrictions to state governments) could establish any mandatory prayer. This would constitute the establishment...
The law requiring the prayer to be said in
public schools in New York state was struck down, setting a major precedent for future cases.
The decision in Oregon v. Smith also set a large precedent with many future ramifications, though the decision was more fine-tuned and complex. Essentially, in determining that the termination and denial of unemployment benefits did not contradict the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion, the
Supreme Court was clarifying what could and could not be considered a constitutional matter under this provision. While the right to freely exercise religion and religious activities could be used by states to allow for the select legality of activities that would otherwise remain illegal, there is nothing in the
constitution that requires states to do this, and suggesting that there was could set a dangerous precedent rendering many unwanted and currently illegal practices (such as polygamy, child molestation in a variety of forms, and others) legal as long as they were part of a religious observance. The Court's decision was thus highly technical and pragmatic.
The decision in Oregon v. Smith suggests one way in which the impacts of the decisions of the Supreme Court could be limited by other public institutions. The redefinition of certain practices and/or perspectives could be used to remove certain laws from the Court's
judicial review, though ultimately this review is up to the Court itself (to a degree). Executive interpretation of judicial decisions can also limit the impact of the Court's decisions, though such actions are (as our last President demonstrated) highly controversial.
