Sherbert v. Verner
Citation and Court
374 U.S. 398 (1963) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Adell Sherbert was a Seventh-day Adventist who was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturdays — her religion’s Sabbath. South Carolina denied her unemployment compensation benefits because she had refused “available work” without good cause. She argued the denial violated her First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
Issue
Whether a state may deny unemployment compensation benefits to a person who refuses work that conflicts with her sincere religious obligations, without violating the Free Exercise Clause.
Holding
No. Denying unemployment benefits to Sherbert for refusing Saturday work substantially burdens her free exercise of religion, and South Carolina has not demonstrated a compelling state interest sufficient to justify that burden.
Rule / Doctrine
Compelling interest test for free exercise: a law or government action that substantially burdens sincere religious practice must be justified by a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. A substantial burden exists when government conditions a benefit on conduct that a person’s religion forbids, or penalizes a person for exercising religious belief.
Significance
Sherbert established the compelling interest test for Free Exercise Clause claims, which remained the governing standard until Employment Division v. Smith (1990) replaced it with a neutral-law-of-general-applicability test. Congress then attempted to restore Sherbert’s compelling interest standard through RFRA (struck down as applied to states in City of Boerne v. Flores). Sherbert still applies in unemployment compensation cases.