Sherbert v. Verner
**Sherbert v. Verner Overview**
Sherbert v. Verner is a significant Supreme Court case addressing the intersection of religious freedom and employment rights. The case arose when Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, was terminated from her job at a textile mill for refusing to work on Saturdays, which she observed as the Sabbath. After her dismissal, South Carolina's unemployment office denied her benefits, citing that religious beliefs were not a valid reason for her inability to work. The state court upheld this denial, referencing previous rulings that had permitted laws disadvantaging religious practices.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Sherbert with a 7-2 decision, asserting that South Carolina's policy infringed on her right to freely exercise her religion as protected by the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that any state restriction on fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling reason and that less restrictive alternatives should be considered. This landmark decision underscored the importance of protecting unconventional religious practices, setting a precedent that was later addressed in subsequent cases, notably Employment Division v. Smith. Sherbert v. Verner remains a cornerstone in discussions about the balance between state interests and individual religious freedoms.
Sherbert v. Verner
Date: June 17, 1963
Citation: 374 U.S. 398
Issue: Freedom of religion
Significance: The Supreme Court required that government apply the “compelling state interest” standard to justify any policy that placed an indirect burden on a religious practice.
Adell Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job in a textile mill because she refused to work on Saturdays, her Sabbath. The unemployment office of South Carolina turned down her claims for benefits because state policy did not accept religious conviction as a sufficient justification for not working. The state court, ruling in favor of the state, referred to Braunfeld v. Brown (1961), which had allowed Sunday-closing laws that indirectly disadvantaged Jewish merchants.
The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, found that South Carolina’s unemployment policy violated the religious exercise clause of the First Amendment. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., wrote that when a state’s policy limited a fundamental right, the state must justify that burden with a compelling rationale. In addition, the state was required to consider alternative means for achieving its objectives and to adopt the policy that was the least restrictive of fundamental rights. In the Braunfeld case, the state had a compelling reason to provide a uniform day of rest, but South Carolina had no similar basis for refusing to modify its policy for unemployment compensation. Sherbert established a strong presumption in favor of protecting unconventional religious practices. The scope of this protection was limited in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1990).