enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Employment Division v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

    Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.

  3. Fact-check: Has the Supreme Court ever taken away a ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/fact-check-supreme-court-ever...

    A second instance multiple scholars referenced was the 1990 case Employment Division v. Smith, which found that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause did not contain the right to religious ...

  4. Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom...

    [23] In the case of Miller v. Commissioner, the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "mark of the beast" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers. [24] In Navajo Nation v.

  5. List of abrogated United States Supreme Court decisions

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abrogated_United...

    This is a list of decisions of the United States Supreme Court that have been abrogated ... Oregon v. Mitchell, ... Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

  6. American Indian Religious Freedom Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious...

    (4) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held that the First Amendment does not protect Indian practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, and also raised uncertainty whether this religious practice would be protected under the compelling of the State interest ...

  7. Oregon defendants without a lawyer must be released from jail ...

    www.aol.com/news/oregon-defendants-without...

    A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that Oregon defendants must be released from jail after seven days if they don’t have a defense attorney. In its decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit ...

  8. Sohappy v. Smith - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohappy_v._Smith

    The federal court combined the case with another case, United States v. Oregon, in which the U.S. federal government sued the state along with the Yakama, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes. [2] The ruling issued by judge Robert C. Belloni in 1969 is known as the "Belloni Decision" or the "Fair Share Doctrine."

  9. AOL Mail

    mail.aol.com

    Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!