374 U.S. 398 (1963), 526, Sherbert v. Verner

Docket Nº:No. 526
Citation:374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965
Party Name:Sherbert v. Verner
Case Date:June 17, 1963
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 398

374 U.S. 398 (1963)

83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965

Sherbert

v.

Verner

No. 526

United States Supreme Court

June 17, 1963

Argued April 24, 1963

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Syllabus

Appellant, a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, was discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. She was unable to obtain other employment because she would not work on Saturday, and she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act, which provides that a claimant is ineligible for benefits if he has failed, without good cause, to accept available suitable work when offered him. The State Commission denied appellant's application on the ground that she would not accept suitable work when offered, and its action was sustained by the State Supreme Court.

Held: As so applied, the South Carolina statute abridged appellant's right to the free exercise of her religion, in violation of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 399-410.

(a) Disqualification of appellant for unemployment compensation benefits, solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion. Pp. 403-406.

(b) There is no compelling state interest enforced in the eligibility provisions of the South Carolina statute which justifies the substantial infringement of appellant's right to religious freedom under the First Amendment. Pp. 406-409.

(c) This decision does not foster the "establishment" of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion in South Carolina contrary to the First Amendment. Pp. 409-410.

240 S.C. 286, 125 S.E.2d 737, reversed.

Page 399

BRENNAN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was discharged by her South Carolina employer because she would not work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith.1 When she was unable to obtain other employment because, from conscientious scruples, she would not take Saturday work,2 she filed a claim for

Page 400

unemployment compensation benefits under the South Carolina Unemployment Compensation Act.3 That law provides that, to be eligible [83 S.Ct. 1792] for benefits, a claimant must be "able to work and . . . available for work"; and, further,

Page 401

that a claimant is ineligible for benefits

[i]f . . . The has failed, without good cause . . . to accept available suitable work when offered him by the employment office or the employer. . . .

The appellee Employment Security Commission, in administrative proceedings under the statute, found that appellant's restriction upon her availability for Saturday work brought her within the provision disqualifying for benefits insured workers who fail, without good cause, to accept "suitable work when offered . . . by the employment office or the employer. . . ." The Commission's finding was sustained by the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County. That court's judgment was, in turn, affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which rejected appellant's contention that, as applied to her, the disqualifying provisions of the South Carolina statute abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion secured under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Supreme Court held specifically that appellant's ineligibility infringed no constitutional liberties because such a construction of the statute

places no restriction upon the appellant's freedom of religion, nor does it in any way prevent her in the exercise of her right and freedom to observe her religious beliefs in accordance with the dictates of her conscience.

240 S.C. 286, 303-304, 125 S.E.2d 737, 746.4 We noted probable

Page 402

jurisdiction of appellant's appeal. 371 U.S. 938. We reverse the judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I

The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233. On the other hand,

Page 403

the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603. The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14.

Plainly enough, appellant's conscientious objection to Saturday work constitutes no conduct prompted by religious principles of a kind within the reach of state legislation. If, therefore, the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court is to withstand appellant's constitutional challenge, it must be either because her disqualification as a beneficiary represents no infringement by the State of her constitutional rights of free exercise, or because any incidental burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion may be justified by a "compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate. . . ." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438.

II

We turn first to the question whether the disqualification for benefits [83 S.Ct. 1794] imposes any burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion. We think it is clear that it does. In a sense, the consequences of such a disqualification to religious principles and practices may be only an indirect result of welfare legislation within the State's general competence to enact; it is true that no criminal sanctions directly compel appellant to work a six-day week. But this is only the beginning, not the end, of our

Page 404

inquiry.5 For

[i]f the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.

Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, at 607. Here, not only is it apparent that appellant's declared ineligibility for benefits derives solely from the practice of her religion, but the pressure upon her to forego that practice is unmistakable. The ruling forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand. Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship.

Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "right," but merely a "privilege." It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.6 American

Page 405

Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 390; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 191-192; Hannegan v. Esquire Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155-156. For example, in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, the Court recognized with respect to Federal Social Security benefits that

[t]he interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental [83 S.Ct. 1795] action afforded by the Due Process Clause.

In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, we emphasized that conditions upon public benefits cannot be sustained if they so operate, whatever their purpose, a to inhibit or deter the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. We there struck down a condition which limited the availability of a tax exemption to those members of the exempted class who affirmed their loyalty to the state government granting the exemption. While the State was surely under no obligation to afford such an exemption, we held that the imposition of such a condition upon even a gratuitous benefit inevitably deterred or discouraged the exercise of First Amendment rights of expression, and thereby threatened to "produce a result which the State could not command directly." 357 U.S.

Page 406

at 526. "To deny an exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech is, in effect, to penalize them for such speech." Id. at 518. Likewise, to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties.

Significantly, South Carolina expressly saves the Sunday worshipper from having to make the kind of choice which we here hold infringes the Sabbatarian's religious liberty. When, in times of "national emergency," the textile plants are authorized by the State Commissioner of Labor to operate on Sunday,

no employee shall be required to work on Sunday . . ....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
2274 practice notes
  • Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Federal Agencies' Programs and Activities
    • United States
    • Agency For International Development,Education Department,Justice Department,Labor Department
    • Invalid date
    ...to the person's sincerely held religious exercise (2) under substantial pressure to comply. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 720-24; Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 405-06. For the first element, the believer's sincerely held religious understanding determines the scope of the religious exercise and whether ......
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...not attempt to regulate religious beliefs, compel religious beliefs, or punish religious beliefs. See id.; see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 492-93, 495 (1961); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944). It may not lend its power......
  • 30 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1994), 93-16021, Lind v. Grimmer
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 22, 1994
    ...to trigger an investigation on the theory that by filing a complaint he bargained away his First Amendment rights. Cf. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). Cowles, in short, is irrelevant to the case at We conclude that section 11-216(d) regulates fully pr......
  • 381 F.Supp. 327 (D.Md. 1974), Civ. Y-74-748, Kirkley v. State of Maryland, by Mandel
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • August 26, 1974
    ...of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.' Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1795, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 In School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.......
  • Free signup to view additional results
2015 cases
  • 30 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1994), 93-16021, Lind v. Grimmer
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • July 22, 1994
    ...to trigger an investigation on the theory that by filing a complaint he bargained away his First Amendment rights. Cf. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). Cowles, in short, is irrelevant to the case at We conclude that section 11-216(d) regulates fully pr......
  • 381 F.Supp. 327 (D.Md. 1974), Civ. Y-74-748, Kirkley v. State of Maryland, by Mandel
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • August 26, 1974
    ...of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege.' Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1795, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 In School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.......
  • 501 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1974), 73-2279, United States v. Brown
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • June 10, 1974
    ...opportunity to discover evidence? May benefits be conditioned on the abandonment of constitutional rights? See. e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403-406, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 1793-1795, 10 L.Ed.2d 965. To deny a defendant the opportunity to discovery-- an opportunity not withheld from defe......
  • 529 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1976), 75--2144, Pence v. Kleppe
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • January 16, 1976
    ...397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, or as unemployed persons rely on unemployment compensation, see Sherbert v. Verner, 1963, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965, or as any citizen relies on a tax exemption, see Speiser v. Randall, 1958, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.......
  • Free signup to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
239 books & journal articles
  • A matter of constitutional luck: the general applicability requirement in free exercise jurisprudence.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 26 Nbr. 2, March 2003
    • March 22, 2003
    ...that is completely out of accord with our intuitions and that will ultimately satisfy neither side. (1.) 494 U.S. 872 (1990). (2.) 374 U.S. 398 (1963). (3.) See Smith, 494 U.S. at 886 n.3 ("[G]enerally applicable, religion-neutral laws that have the effect of burdening a particular rel......
  • Judicial review of local land use decisions: lessons from RLUIPA.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 31 Nbr. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...holding that the Free Exercise Clause provided the Amish with an exemption from compulsory school attendance laws); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403-06 (1963) (applying strict scrutiny and mandating an exemption to a state law that prevented a Seventh-Day Adventist from receiving unemp......
  • No scrutiny whatsoever: deconstitutionalization of poverty law, dual rules of law, & dialogic default.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 35 Nbr. 3, April 2008
    • April 1, 2008
    ...cannot be answered by the argument that public assistance benefits are a 'privilege' and not a 'right'"); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 404 (1963) (invalidating denial of unemployment benefits to claimant who refused to work on Saturday due to her religious beliefs based in part on......
  • The assumptions of federalism.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 58 Nbr. 6, April 2006
    • April 1, 2006
    ...(26.) U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, [section] 5. (27.) 521 U.S. 507 (1997). (28.) 494 U.S. 872 (1990). (29.) See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398,403 (1963). (30.) 42 U.S.C. [section] 2000bb-1 (1993), invalidated by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). (31.) See City of Boerne, 5......
  • Free signup to view additional results
3 provisions
  • Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations in the Federal Agencies' Programs and Activities
    • United States
    • Agency For International Development,Education Department,Justice Department,Labor Department
    • Invalid date
    ...to the person's sincerely held religious exercise (2) under substantial pressure to comply. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 720-24; Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 405-06. For the first element, the believer's sincerely held religious understanding determines the scope of the religious exercise and whether ......
  • Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 26, 2017
    • October 26, 2017
    ...not attempt to regulate religious beliefs, compel religious beliefs, or punish religious beliefs. See id.; see also Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 492-93, 495 (1961); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944). It may not lend its power......
  • Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 02, 2002
    • August 4, 2002
    ...In support of this position, one of the commenters stated that the Supreme Court found as much in the seminal case of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), while more recently holding that a State may deny unemployment benefits for illegal conduct, even if that conduct is religiously The......