Opinion ID: 887107
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sherbert Test

Text: ¶ 58 Beginning with Sherbert v. Verner (1963), 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965, the United States Supreme Court has held that the denial of unemployment benefits to applicants who refuse to compromise their religious principles in order to obtain work imposes an impermissible burden on religion. Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div. (1981), 450 U.S. 707, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (Jehovah's Witness fired because he would not participate in the production of armaments was entitled to unemployment benefits); Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n (1987), 480 U.S. 136, 107 S.Ct. 1046, 94 L.Ed.2d 190 (Seventh-day Adventist fired for refusing to work shifts scheduled on the Sabbath was entitled to unemployment benefits); Frazee v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec. (1989), 489 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 1514, 103 L.Ed.2d 914 (Christian turning down job that would require him to work on Sundays in contravention of religious belief was entitled to unemployment benefits). In all of these cases, the employee was forced to choose between fidelity to religious belief and continued employment; the forfeiture of unemployment benefits for choosing the former over the latter [brought] unlawful coercion to bear on the employee's choice. Hobbie, 480 U.S. at 144, 107 S.Ct. at 1051, 94 L.Ed.2d at 200. The Sherbert Court elaborated that [g]overnmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed on a worshiper. Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 404, 83 S.Ct. at 1794, 10 L.Ed.2d at 970-71. Mindful of this burden on religion, the Court considered whether some compelling state interest nonetheless justified the substantial infringement of the applicant's First Amendment right, Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406, 83 S.Ct. at 1795, 10 L.Ed.2d at 972, and concluded that there was no such compelling interest. Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 409, 83 S.Ct. at 1796, 10 L.Ed.2d at 973. ¶ 59 The Supreme Court has expressed reluctance about applying the Sherbert test outside of the context of unemployment benefits, see Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. v. Smith (1990), 494 U.S. 872, 883, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1602, 108 L.Ed.2d 876, 888, [2] but the test has been nonetheless been applied elsewhere. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Sherbert to Medicaid and Medicare benefits in Children's Healthcare Is A Legal Duty, Inc. v. Min De Parle (8th Cir. 2000), 212 F.3d 1084, 1093, noting that [t]he Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner held that legislation which forces an individual to choose between following his religious beliefs and receiving government benefits places a burden on that person's religious exercise. The Court considered whether statutory accommodations for benefit recipients with particular religious views concerning medical care violated the Religion Clauses and, in so doing, reasoned as follows about the relationship between religious conviction and benefit eligibility: [T]he Medicare and Medicaid Acts place individuals who hold religious objections to medical care in a situation similar to that contemplated by the Sherbert line of cases. They are forced to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs and foregoing all government health care benefits, or violating their religious convictions and receiving the medical care provided by Medicare and Medicaid. The pressure to violate religious convictions is especially acute under Medicaid, which often represents the only source of health care for indigent persons. By extending nonmedical health care benefits to individuals who object for reasons of religion to medical treatment, section 4454 [the accommodation provision] spares such individuals from being forced to choose between adhering to the tenets of their faith and receiving government aid, and in doing so removes a burden that the law would otherwise impose. Children's Healthcare, 212 F.3d at 1093 (emphasis added). On such reasoning, the Court of Appeals held constitutional the federal statute that created exceptions to the Medicare and Medicaid Acts for persons who have religious objections to the receipt of medical care, enabling such individuals to obtain government assistance for nonmedical care. Comparing these benefits with the unemployment benefits at issue in Sherbert, the Court of Appeals reasoned that [a]lthough unemployment benefits may be broader in scope than health care benefits, both are widely available public benefits that are of great importance to personal well-being. Children's Healthcare, 212 F.3d at 1094. The Court of Appeals then concluded that, just as the burden on the unemployment benefits applicant in Sherbert required religious accommodation, so too was the burden on applicants in the healthcare context sufficient to permit the congressional accommodation. Children's Healthcare, 212 F.3d at 1094. ¶ 60 Although Children's Healthcare addressed the flip side of the Religion Clause benefit issue, that is, a governmental accommodation of religious belief instead of a governmental impingement of religious belief, it nonetheless addressed the core constitutional concern of Sherbert and of this case  avoiding the imposition of a burden upon the free exercise of religion  and provides important instruction for this matter. Under the Sherbert cases, the federal courts will not permit a state to force a citizen to choose between the exercise of his or her religious faith and the receipt of government benefits without a compelling state interest. The Claimants in the instant case, like Sherbert and the parties in the subsequent line of cases, were denied government benefits. Also as in the Sherbert cases, the benefits were denied to the Claimants here because of their religious practice of granting all property to the Colony and owning nothing. As found by the Hearings Examiner, this practice is based upon religious tenet and is the centerpiece of the Claimants' religious life: The Colony exists in the form of a communal living arrangement where everybody shares his or her productivity and nobody individually owns real or personal property. . . . . The community of goods principle is derived from the Bible, Acts 2:44-47 and 4:32-35, which reads, And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.... [Ellipsis in original.] And the multitude of them that ... believed were of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed were his own; but they had all things in common. ¶ 61 This religious practice of divestiture, according to DPHHS, has disqualified the Claimants from benefit eligibility because the Claimants must be considered, contrary to their religious beliefs, to have retained a personal beneficial interest in the property owned by the Colony. The Court approves this position, concluding that the members have a beneficial interest in Colony property, which the Colony holds in trust to meet the individual needs of the members.