|
''Sherbert v. Verner'', , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required that the government demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question be narrowly tailored, before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion. The case established the ''Sherbert'' Test, requiring demonstration of such a compelling interest and narrow tailoring in all Free Exercise cases where a religious person was substantially burdened by a law. These conditions are the key components of what is usually called strict scrutiny. 27 years later, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherbert Test, as a judicial constitutional analysis tool, was too broad when applied to all laws. With respect to religiously neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise, the Sherbert Test was eliminated in ''Employment Division v. Smith'' 494 U.S. 872 (1990). For laws that discriminate along religious/secular lines, or neutral laws that are enforced in a discriminatory way, the components of the Sherbert Test are still appropriate constitutional tools for courts to use. In response to the 1990 Smith decision, Congress created an enhanced version of the Sherbert Test as a statutory—rather than constitutional—right in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. RFRA's provisions were designed to apply broadly to all laws and regulations, both federal and state. Although Congress replaced the "narrowly tailored" constitutional requirement with a "least restrictive means" statutory requirement, the enhanced test is still referred to as the Sherbert Test. But the Supreme Court held four years later, in ''City of Boerne v. Flores,'' 521 U.S. 507 (1997), that RFRA was unconstitutional, because its enhanced Sherbert Test, as a purported change in constitutional rights, could not be enforced against the States. RFRA impermissibly interfered with the judiciary's sole power to interpret the Constitution. But the ruling did not necessarily limit RFRA's effect on interpretation of federal statutes. So, in 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) along with a RFRA revised to apply only to federal laws. Both RFRA and RLUIPA contain the same language for an even further enhanced Sherbert Test, one that broadens the definition of substantial religious burden. Without addressing the constitutionality of RFRA at the federal level, the Supreme Court has since relied on the RFRA's statutory Sherbert Test to decide several prominent cases, including ''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby'', , and ''Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal,'' 546 U.S. 418 (2006). ==Background of the case== Adell Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, worked as a textile-mill operator. Two years after her conversion to that faith, her employer switched from a five-day to a six-day workweek, including Saturdays. Since according to her belief, YHWH in Exodus 20:8-11 forbade working on Saturdays (seventh day is the Sabbath), she refused to work that day and was fired. Sherbert could not find any other work and applied for unemployment compensation. Her claim was denied, even though the state's ineligibility provisions exempted anyone, whether religious or not, "for good cause." The Employment Security Commission's decision was affirmed by a state trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Sherbert v. Verner」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|