Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 37.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

15 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

(prison); Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U. S. 503, 506 (1986) 
(military).  None of these decisions questioned the validity 
of Sherbert’s interpretation of the free-exercise right. 

B 
This is where our case law stood when Smith reached the 
Court.  The underlying situation in Smith was very similar 
to that in Sherbert.  Just as Adell Sherbert had been denied 
unemployment benefits due to conduct mandated by her re-
ligion (refraining from work on Saturday), Alfred Smith and 
Galen  Black  were  denied  unemployment  benefits  because 
of a religious practice (ingesting peyote as part of a worship 
service of the Native American Church).  494 U. S., at 874. 
Applying the Sherbert test, the Oregon Supreme Court held
that  this  denial  of  benefits  violated  Smith’s  and  Black’s 
free-exercise rights, and this Court granted review.24 

The State defended the denial of benefits under the Sher-
bert framework.  It argued that it had a compelling interest 
in combating the use of dangerous drugs and that accom-
modating  their  use  for  religious  purposes  would  upset  its 
enforcement scheme.  Brief for Petitioners in Employment 
Div.,  Dept.  of  Human  Resources  v.  Smith,  No.  88–1213, 
O. T. 1988, pp. 5–7, 12, 16.  The State never suggested that 
Sherbert should be overruled.  See Brief for Petitioners in 
No. 88–1213, at 11.  Instead, the crux of its disagreement 
with  Smith  and  Black  and  the  State  Supreme  Court  was
whether its interest in preventing drug use could be served 

—————— 

24 This Court actually granted review twice: once, after the state court 
first held that the denial of benefits was unconstitutional, see Smith v. 
Employment  Div.,  Dept.  of  Human  Resources,  301  Ore.  209,  220,  721 
P. 2d 445, 451 (1986), cert. granted 480 U. S. 916 (1987), and then again
after  the  case  was  remanded  for  the  state  court  to  determine  whether 
peyote  consumption  for  religious  use  was  unlawful  under  Oregon  law, 
see  Employment Div.,  Dept. of  Human  Resources  of Ore. v.  Smith,  485 
U. S. 660, 662, 673–674 (1988).  When the state court held that it was 
and reaffirmed its prior decision, 307 Ore. 68, 72–73, 763 P. 2d 146, 147–
148 (1988), the Court granted certiorari, 489 U. S. 1077 (1989).