Employment division v. Smith, 494 U.S 872

-the reasoning: the completed contract was mailed before the attempted revocation was received. There was evidence to support it and a binding contract must stand.

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Application/Analysis: The court agrees that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud, but in this instance, the court takes issue with the fact that a sole authority, the secretary of the Public Welfare Council, can decide what is considered a valid religion. The court states that the secretary “is empowered to determine whether the cause is a

The parties in this lawsuit are: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and Mims Distributing Company, Inc (defendant), the EEOC is the plaintiff on behalf of Christopher Alston (Lally, 2015). Christopher Alston was a potential employee of the Mims Distributing Company, Inc.

Facts: This is a Title VII action alleging harassment based on national origin and religion. The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Rafiq. On May 11, 2001, Mohommed Rafiq was hired as a car salesman. Rafiq was born in India and is a practicing Muslim. The alleged harassment began on September 11, 2001. When he arrived for work that afternoon, his co-workers were watching news coverage of the terrorist attacks and one of them asked him in a mocking way, "Where have you been?", as if to infer that he had participated in the attacks.

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

The Courts decision was in favor or Vashti McCollum by a vote of 8-1ruling that the religious classes was unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black stated

This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller's reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states:

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

It’s an important viewpoint of the policy that in place does not pardon the use of illicit substances, however has been developed in conjunction with the public health strategy and reduction of injury and illnesses of illicit substance, improve health, social and economic outcomes for the individual and the wider community.

Throughout the second decision, Justice Scalia questioned Craig Dorsay, Smith and Black’s attorney, to a radical point asked “whether Aztecs would be entitled to exemptions from murder laws if they wanted to practice human sacrifice.” At this question, Dorsay controlled his irritation that this question equated the church with murder. Hostile comments on the decision of the case, including from mainstream religious leaders, felt that the decision demoted the “religious liberty to a secondary status among the nation’s individual rights.” The affiliation then began lobbying for legislative override of the decision. Although, coalition leaders told Native church that peyote was controversial and should be addressed at a later time. As a result

The aim of this early conciliation is to encourage as many cases as possible to settle ‘compromising’ the claim through a settlement agreement (previously called a ‘compromise agreement’) an agreement achieved through Acas conciliation (a ‘COT3’). Appendix 3 is an early conciliation Flow Chart (ACAS)

The sherbet test only initiated strict scrutiny if the government forces you to have your religious practice burdened through means of penalties or withholding benefits. Being sued qualifies as penalty in my mind. Though I am personally not religious I can imagine that in such a case there is burden on Ananta’s part. If there was not, I am willing to guess she would have just taken the photos so her refusal to do so I take as a sign that it would cause some burden it she did. Thus under Sherbet the statute would be subject to strict scrutiny and fail thus being deemed unconstitutional. Under the Sherbet Test an exemption is granted.

One the many controversies in our country today, regards the prohibition of illegal narcotics. Deemed unhealthy, hazardous, and even fatal by the authorities that be; the U.S. government has declared to wage a “war on drugs.” It has been roughly fifteen years since this initiative has begun, and each year the government shuffles more money into the unjust cause of drug prohibition. Even after all of this, the problem of drugs that the government sees still exists. The prohibition of drugs is a constitutional anomaly. There are many aspects and sides to look at the issue from, but the glaring inefficiency current laws exude is that any human should have the right to ingest anything he or she desires. The antagonist on the other end

Is the State justified in restricting individuals’ access to drugs in order to prevent them from harming themselves?