Should the Court Overturn Smith? - Georgetown Law Daniel Webster Debate Series скачать в хорошем качестве

Should the Court Overturn Smith? - Georgetown Law Daniel Webster Debate Series

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause permits States to refuse to carve out religious exceptions for generally applicable criminal laws. The law at issue here criminalized the possession of certain controlled substances, including the peyote petitioners traditionally used as part of their Native American Church service. The Court determined that, although individuals are free to believe whatever they wish, these beliefs could not excuse them from complying with an otherwise valid and neutral law. The Court also explicitly moved away from the strict scrutiny, compelling interest test in evaluating free exercise claims and upheld the challenged law. Smith has long been the subject of significant controversy. Professor Michael McConnell, for example, regarded the decision as “undoubtedly the most important development in the law of religious freedom in decades.” Critics have urged the Court to replace its approach to free exercise claims. Whereas Smith’s defenders have emphasized the importance of equality, its opponents have blasted Smith for undermining religious liberty and stifling faith-based practices. Highlighting the legal divide, three Supreme Court Justices—Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—have explicitly called for Smith to be overruled. Thus, the Georgetown Law Chapter of the Federalist Society is delighted to present a debate—featuring eminently qualified First Amendment scholars and moderated by our very own esteemed Dean Treanor—on just that question: Should the Court Overturn Smith?