Sherbert V. Verner: an Analysis of Religious Freedom

Introduction

The Supreme Court case, Sherbert v. Verner, from 1963, is super important when it comes to understanding the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. This case is about Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, who got denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she wouldn’t work on her Sabbath. This denial brought up big questions about how much the government should accommodate religious practices and where the line is for state interference in religious exercise. This essay will dive into the case, looking at the background, the arguments made, the Court’s reasoning, and what it means for religious freedom and employment law in the U.

S.

Background and Case Details

Adell Sherbert worked at a textile mill in South Carolina. Her religion made her observe Saturday as her Sabbath. When her boss told her to work on Saturdays, she refused and got fired. She then tried to get unemployment benefits, but the South Carolina Employment Security Commission said no because she wouldn’t accept suitable work. Sherbert argued this denial violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion freely. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court to decide if the state’s action was unfair to Sherbert’s religious practice.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, sided with Sherbert. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion. He said denying Sherbert unemployment benefits was a big burden on her free exercise of religion. The Court used a strict scrutiny test, which means the state had to show a really good reason for this burden and that denying benefits was the least restrictive way to achieve that reason. The Court found that the state didn’t have a good enough reason and forcing Sherbert to choose between her religion and unemployment benefits was wrong. This decision expanded protections for religious freedom, saying the government must accommodate religious practices unless there’s a compelling reason not to.

Implications and Subsequent Developments

The Sherbert v. Verner decision had big effects on how the Free Exercise Clause is interpreted and how religious freedom and state interests are balanced. The ruling created the “Sherbert Test,” which requires the government to justify any significant burden on religious exercise with a compelling state interest and to show it used the least restrictive means. This test influenced later cases, like Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), where the Court sided with Amish parents who didn’t want to send their kids to public school past eighth grade. However, the use of the Sherbert Test has reduced in recent years, especially after the Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which said that neutral, generally applicable laws could be upheld even if they incidentally burdened religious practices.

Conclusion

The Sherbert v. Verner case is still a key part of constitutional law about religious freedom in the U.S. By ruling for Adell Sherbert, the Supreme Court highlighted the need to protect individual religious practices from unnecessary government interference. The decision reinforced that the state must accommodate religious beliefs unless it can show a compelling reason and that it used the least restrictive means. Even though the Sherbert Test isn’t used as much nowadays, the case is still an important reference in debates about the balance between religious freedom and state rules. Sherbert v. Verner shows the ongoing tension between individual rights and government authority, which is still a big part of interpreting the First Amendment today.

Did you like this example?

232

10