May people be forced to work on Friday night and Saturday if those are their days
of worship? (no); May religious dress be regulated? (generally no, but in some con-
texts, such as the military, yes). Keep in mind that this list is not exhaustive.
One case in 1990 addressed whether the state may deny unemployment ben-
efi ts to someone who is fi red for taking illegal drugs as part of a religious ceremony.
The Court ruled that the state of Oregon had not violated the free exercise clause
in denying unemployment benefi ts to the plaintiff s because they were fi red from
their jobs in a drug rehabilitation clinic for using peyote. The broader signifi cance
of the ruling came with the Court’s announcement of a new interpretation of the
free exercise clause: the government does not need a “compelling interest” in
regulating a particular behavior to justify a law that limits a religious practice.^58
In other words, after this decision it would be easier for the government to limit
the exercise of religion because the Court would no longer require a “compelling”
reason for the restrictions, just a good one.
Although Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act in 1993, reinstating the need to demonstrate a “compelling state interest”
before limiting religious freedoms, in 1997 the Court ruled that Congress could
not usurp its power to defi ne the constitutional protections for religion and that
the 1993 law did not apply to the states.^59 Then in 2000 Congress passed a more
narrowly written law that only concerned zoning and the religious rights of people
in prisons and government-run mental institutions. Under its power to regulate
commerce and control spending, Congress told states that if they accepted federal
tax dollars, they would have to reinstate the “compelling interest” standard when
restricting religious practices in these two areas.
The Supreme Court gave partial support to this law in deciding a case involving
the religious freedoms of prison inmates in Ohio.^60 The Court also upheld the law
in allowing members of a small religion in New Mexico to use a hallucinogenic tea
in their services even though the tea is a federally controlled substance. The Court
ruled that the government had not demonstrated a compelling interest in barringLAW YERS FOR TOM GREEN ARGUED
that laws against bigamy and
polygamy infringed on his
religious freedom. Green belonged
to a fundamentalist sect of
Mormonism that teaches plural
marriage. When this photo was
taken in 2000, he had fi ve wives
and at least 29 children.
108 CHAPTER 4|CIVIL LIBERTIES