Case Study: Oregon V. Smith

Issue? Was the exchange of a firearm for drugs applicable under the federal law against the use of a firearm in the commission of a drug offense.

The respondents in Smith were fired from their jobs as counselors at a drug rehabilitation clinic when they tested positive for peyote, an illegal drug in the state of Oregon. As members of the Native American Church ingesting peyote is a sacramental ritual. The respondents filed claims for unemployment benefits and were denied due to their illegal behavior. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision and the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the state could withhold

In doing so, California is safeguarding concerns of religious groups, and those worried about civil liberties. California is not singling out money for one religious order, instead any student that qualifies for aid is eligible. This shows that the state is not favoring one religion, but rather the state is working in the interest of the students. In addition, the State can show the breadth of the law makes it neutral considering it effectively applies to every individual who requests grant money. The neutrality of the law ensures that it is not endorsing one religion over another, and both Mitchell v Helms and Zelman v Simmons-Harris set a precedent in neutrality. Thus, using the Sherbert Test, Mitchell v. Helms, and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris government assistance is constitutional when offered equitably to students attending both public and private religious schools. However, those were merely counterarguments, and California contends current precedent is dictated using the Smith test established in Employment Division v.

A woman from South Carolina was denied unemployment benefits because of her religious beliefs. She was a Seventh Day Adventist who worshipped on Saturday. Her place of work originally only operated five days a week. Sherbert converted to Seventh Day Adventist and began to worship on Saturday. Her work then decided to be open six days a week including Saturday. She then refused to work on Saturday her day of worship and was fired because of it. After being fired she looked for a new job but could not find one that would accept

Board of Education (1947) was a New Jersey case that rose to the Supreme Court and lead to a landmark decision. The Board of Education was reimbursing students for taking public transportation to and from both public and private schools. A taxpayer objected to the use of public funds to reimburse any student attending a religious school. The Supreme Court found the state statute allowing the reimbursement valid, in part because the reimbursement was paid to the parents of the students and not a religious institution, and the payments were available to everyone, not only those attending a religious institution. The decision was significant for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court ruled the establishment clause would now apply to the states. Secondly, Justice Hugo Black, in writing the majority opinion, stated, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” This is one of the most egregious cases of judicial activism, trying to accomplish what from the bench what the Legislature could not accomplish in 1876. It is particularly troublesome because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution or any federal statute, and the addition of the phrases, “that wall must be kept high and impregnable” and “we could not approve the slightest breach” drastically changes the context in which it was written. Additionally, since

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

On Wednesday, March 23,2016 the Supreme Court heads toward a legal challenge created by a Christian nonprofit employers that are against providing female workers insurance that covers birth control which is required by Obama’s healthcare law. The employers call contraception as immoral and they also said that the government should not make religious believers to choose either following their faith or following the law. That places of worship should be exempted from these such laws.

A rehabilitation clinic dismissed two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The two counselors, including Smith, sought unemployment benefits. Possessing peyote is a criminal offense in the State of Oregon. The rehabilitation clinic denied the counselors unemployment on grounds of misconduct. Smith filed suit again the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the rehabilitation clinic’s verdict. The court stated that Smith’s religious use of peyote was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Employment Division, Department of Resources appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and

The Supreme Court has applied the third-party ruling to telephone information in its 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland. In that case, law enforcement agents suspected Smith of robbing a woman and making threatening phone calls to her. The telephone company cooperated with agents to install a “pen register,” a device that recorded the phone numbers dialed, but not the content of conversations. The pen register data led to Smith’s arrest and conviction. The defendant argued that the pen data had been collected without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment does not require the government to seek a warrant before obtaining call metadata. The reasoning behind the Smith case has led to the government’s ability to obtain bulk collection of telephony

The vehicle exception to the Warrant requirement is also known as the Carroll doctrine, named after the Carroll v. United States case. The court then ruled that police did not need a warrant to search motor vehicles if they had probably cause. The Court’s ruling is based on the public use of the vehicle itself and, “the expectation of privacy with respect to one's vehicle is lower than that regarding one's home or office” (Kukura, 2016). Confusion comes into play when concerning whether or not packages, containers, or luggage that is inside the vehicle falls under the warrantless search. It can be compared to which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In California v. Acevedo the Court ruled that a container that is found in the vehicle

To begin with, when the Oregon law introduced the deposit system in 1971 it was used to address the issue of bottles, and cans alongside the roads, beaches, and other areas. This law was a way to motivate people to save their cans and later recycle them to get an incentive back. Incentives always motivate individuals to do something and the new bill kind of did that. In order to keep the environment clean, it was a way to give the public an incentive to save their bottles and cans. As mentioned the redemption rates for Oregon had exceeded to 90 percent in the first 15 years of bottle bill and slowly it started to fall. By 2009 it was at 75 percent. In the first few years, the public was motivated to save their cans because it was something new and they got incentivised. Also, back then a nickel had a lot of power. But slowly for many individuals, the nickel didn’t mean much and the rates started falling down.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) talked about the Free Exercise Clause by putting together a three-part explanation to balance out people 's education and religious freedom. “The balancing test marked the move from belief-action doctrine in the nineteenth century.”(Politics, 2014) Through the case its decisions impacted the debate regarding parents control of their children 's education. Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment posed some challenges to court, which was faced with the conflicts between the church and the state. “The clause, which protects the free exercise of religion, fails to define religion, leaves its protective parameters unclear, and invites a wide range of interpretations.” (Industries, 2016) Free Exercise is difficult to understand but it is important in a nation as diverse as the United States. In the United States religious groups look for exemption from state or federal laws based on their own beliefs.

This reading outlines the evolution of housing rights in New York City – beginning with “skid row” populations. Lawyers had to first persuade courts that the government first had an obligation to provide shelter before standards of shelter could be addressed. McCain v. Koch was an important case because in its holding, the court upheld the trial court’s injunction that the shelters had to meet certain standards. Litigation allowed the government to be held accountable for due process infractions, which paved the way for a shift from shelter to housing. In addition, state constitutions could be held to more expansive housing rights. For example, the article mentions Article XVII of the New York State Constitution. The other way the article details to move from the right to shelter to the right to housing is by requiring that part of the right to shelter is assistance in finding permanent housing. This transition was partially enabled by the settlement negotiations of McCain, which required the city to provide grants for security deposits and storage fees, as well brokers’ fees. The

In Lord Oxunfarian Xodus v. Wackenhut Corp., Xodus accused Wackenhut of religious discrimination under Title VII of the EEOC Guidelines “Prohibits workplace or job segregation based on religion”

By a 7-2 vote The Supreme Court reversed and ruled in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church. The court ruled that religious organizations may not be excluded from state programs if they have a secular intent. In the majority opinion, the justices argued that excluding religious groups from this kind of state funding would discriminate against them based on religion. While this ruling is narrow and does not