In April of 1990, the Case of Employment Division,
Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith was decided. This case involved
two counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization. The two counselors
were member of the Native American Church; as a part of their religious ceremonies
they ingested peyote, which is a powerful hallucinogen. When the organization
found out about the use of peyote, the counselors were fired. As a result, both
of them filed a claim for unemployment. However, the government denied their
claim because their dismissal from the organization was considered work-related
“misconduct.” The state appellate court reversed the denial of the claim
because it violated the counselors’ First Amendment right to free exercise of
religion. The state supreme court then affirmed the appellate court’s decision.
However, the US Supreme Court then vacated the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision
and returned the case back to the Oregon courts. This was done in order to
decide whether the use of illegal drugs in a sacramental way violated Oregon’s
state drug laws. The Oregon Supreme Court decided that the law’s prohibition of
illegal drugs for sacramental religious purposes violated the Free Exercise
Clause. As a result, the case returned to the US Supreme Court in a new light.
The question
at hand was whether a state could deny unemployment benefits to a worker who
was fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. In a 6 to 3 decision
the court ruled that yes, a state could deny unemployment benefits to a worker
who was fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. The court
reasoned that one’s religious beliefs should not excuse them from a law, that is
otherwise valid, that prohibits conduct that does not have any constitutional
protections.
The case
of Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors was decided by the Idaho First
Judicial District Court in July of this year. George Ricks, an Idaho resident,
wants to be a state-licensed contractor and start his own business. However,
his religion is stopping him from doing so. In the state of Idaho, it is
required that a person uses their social security number to register as an
independent contractor. Ricks, however, is a devout Christian and based on his
interpretation of Revelations 13:16-18,
16And he causeth all,
both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their
right hand, or in their foreheads:
17And that no man might buy
or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of
his name.
18Here is wisdom. Let
him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number
of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
he believes that it is sinful to use his social security
number to register as an independent contractor. There is a very small percentage
of Christians that agree with this interpretation of these verses of the Bible,
but that does not make his claim any less valid.
As a
result of being denied a contractor’s license, Ricks offered alternate forms of
identification, such as a birth certificate, but the state would not accept it.
In Idaho foreign workers who do not have social security numbers can use their
birth certificates to obtain an occupational license in the state. Ricks argued
that he should get the same exemption.
The Idaho
First Judicial Court ruled in favor of the Idaho Board of Contractors. Ricks appealed
the decision and is waiting for the case to be argued in front of the US
Supreme Court. The ruling of this case could overturn the decision of Employment
Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith if the Supreme
Court rules in favor of Ricks. These two cases are similar because they involve
laws that are hurtful to those who have religious restrictions, but otherwise
are valid laws. The question here is whether it is more important to value,
otherwise valid, laws or the constitutionally protected religious rights of
individuals.
As
mentioned above, the right to free exercise of religion is a guarantee under our
nation’s constitution, so I believe that this important right should overrule
state laws in certain cases, especially in the case of Ricks v. Idaho Board
of Contractors. Ricks sincerely believe that giving his social security
number to become a state licensed contractor would be a sin due to his deeply
held religious beliefs. However, that should not stop him from becoming a
licensed contractor and contributing to society in that way, but also do not
think that the law preventing him from getting a license in unconstitutional at
its core. As stated before, in the state of Idaho, foreign contractors can get
a license by way of providing a valid birth certificate. This is an exemption
that is provided to them because of their citizenship. Would it be so wrong to provide
the same exemption to Ricks because of his religion? I don’t think it would be
wrong at all. To not provide the exemption to him would be unconstitutional.
6 comments:
Something that I hold to be true is that people should be given a religious exemption for activities that contradict their religious duties/beliefs. I understand the social need for having contractors register with a card, however, as long as harm is not being done to someone else, the court should always defer to the religious individual. It is important that we maintain religious minorities' rights to freely exercise their religion.
I actually wrote about this case in my first blog post. The salient issue in this case is whether the Idaho Board of Contractors violated Ricks’s rights to freely exercise religion by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification other than a social security number. The law clearly fails the Sherbert test because the state is imposing a burden on Ricks with no compelling interest to do so. Additionally, there were least restrictive means to provide identification.
I agree with Manning that the law fails the Sherbert test because the state is imposing a burden on George Ricks's free exercise rights; I agreed with Manning's full argument in her blog post about this issue as well. I do like that the author questions whether this could mean overturning the decision in Employment Division v. Smith. I do not really know where I stand with this; are the unlawful acts of Smith and Ricks more similar or different from each other? I believe that neither action (ingesting peyote or failing to provide a social security number) has criminal intent, but the state may weigh each unlawful act differently depending on its interests. These state interests may have changed since Employment Division v. Smith was ruled, which was nearly 30 years ago. Both identity and drug laws are important and should not be violated, so are the two acts comparable? I am not so sure.
I tend to favor religious free exercise and in both of these cases, feel that citizens were acting within their free exercise rights. I understand that using social security numbers to register is convenient and logical for the government; however, I do not feel the government should force a citizen to use them if it is requiring him or her to sin against a sincerely held religious belief.
I agree with Will's interpretation. I admittedly am not aware if the government gains anything from requiring state employees to provide their social security numbers as opposed to birth certificates to become recognized. However, with no rationale provided, it appears on the outside that there is no compelling state interest to not accept Ricks birth certificate as valid identification. Furthermore, I believe a substantial burden is being put on Ricks by essentially not providing him with an income unless he gives the state his social security number, which goes against his sincerely held religious beliefs.
I believe that in this case, it is important to consider the implications of exemptions of the law. What comes into question is a slippery slope effect, creating laws which have an inordinate amount of exceptions. As long as the law does not discriminate against specific religions, they should be valid on their face. There needs to be a basic, standard set of laws which need to be abided by all citizens. Both smoking peyote and failing to turn over Social Security are both violations of the state law. The state law is not discriminatory to any specific religion.
Post a Comment