Alva Review-Courier -

In the late 1980s, Oregon residents Alfred Smith and Galen Black were dismissed from their jobs because they had used peyote during religious services in the Native American Church.

When they filed claims with the state seeking unemployment compensation, the Oregon Department of Human Resources denied their requests.

The agency reasoned that since peyote was illegal in the state, the men had been rightfully fired for “misconduct.”

But the Oregon supreme court sided with Smith and Black, arguing that to punish them was to deny their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The state appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court. To the surprise of many following the case, the court ruled 5-4 against the men.

The makeup of the nation’s highest court at the time it heard the appeal was five “conservative” justices and four “liberal” ones. Four of the conservatives were among the five justices ruling against the plaintiffs.

Many people attacked the court’s ruling as an assault on religious freedom. They believed that the court was reluctant to sanction the use of illegal drugs because of the conservative “war on drugs” that had been launched by former President Ronald Reagan.

Moreover, if members of the Native American Church (which, of course, included people other than American Indians) were allowed to use illegal drugs perhaps people would join the denomination for the sole purpose of circumventing the law.

Indian tribes throughout the country were outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon v. Smith. Eventually, Congress moved to blunt the court’s ruling by voting to restore the right of denomination members to use peyote during church rituals.

Meanwhile, the State of Oregon enacted a law that allows anyone arrested for using peyote to assert as a defense to the charges (if true) that he was using the drug in a legitimate religious ceremony.

In 1993, another United States Supreme Court decision addressed the issue of church members performing an illegal act. We will look at that case next week in Part 4 of this article.