•  
  •  
 

Authors

David S. Goles

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

This casenote examines the California Supreme Court decision of Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission and determines that the analysis applied by the court was improper and not in conformance with precedential law. The note begins by providing a historical overview of the various approaches the United States Supreme Court has taken in analyzing the right to freely exercise religion. After determining what the current analysis is, the author examines the Smith decision and determines the California Supreme Court misapplied the third part of that analysis, the substantial burden test. The author argues that had the California Supreme Court properly applied the test, the court would have found a substantial burden to have been present and, ultimately, decided the case differently. The note ends with a brief discussion of the practical impact and implications of the Smith decision.

First Page

197

Last Page

218

Publication Date

11-1-1997

Department

College of Law

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.