Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion.

The case established the "Sherbert" Test, requiring demonstration of such a compelling interest and narrow tailoring in all Free Exercise cases in which a religious person was substantially burdened by a law. The conditions are the key components of what is usually called strict scrutiny.

In 1990, the Supreme Court decided that the "Sherbert" Test, as a judicial constitutional analysis tool, was too broad when applied to all laws. With respect to religiously neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise, the Sherbert Test was eliminated in "Employment Division v. Smith". For laws that discriminate along religious/secular lines or neutral laws that are enforced in a discriminatory way, the components of the Sherbert Test are still appropriate constitutional tools for courts to use.

In response to the 1990 "Smith" decision, Congress created an enhanced version of the Sherbert Test as a statutory, rather than constitutional, right in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Its provisions were designed to apply broadly to all laws and regulations, both federal and state. Although Congress replaced the "narrowly tailored" constitutional requirement with a "least restrictive means" statutory requirement, the enhanced test is still referred to as the Sherbert Test.

However, the Supreme Court held in "City of Boerne v. Flores" that the law was unconstitutional because its enhanced Sherbert Test, as a purported change in constitutional rights, could not be enforced against the states. It impermissibly interfered with the judiciary's sole power to interpret the Constitution. However, the ruling did not necessarily limit its effect on interpretation of federal statutes.

In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) that applied only to federal laws. Both laws contain the same language for an even further enhanced "Sherbert" Test, one that broadens the definition of substantial religious burden.

The Supreme Court has since relied on the statutory "Sherbert" Test to decide several prominent cases, including "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby", , and "Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal," 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
Q11201
Supreme Court of the United States
Concept
Q5499816
Free Exercise Clause
ORG
Q12616
First Amendment
EVE
Q7623621
strict scrutiny
UNK
Q5374335
Employment Division v. Smith
EVE
Q7311296
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
ORG
Q5123597
City of Boerne v. Flores
EVE
Q7311300
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
UNK
Q16961547
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
EVE
Q5582156
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
PER
Q7494708
Sherbert v. Verner
EVE
1990-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1990
DATE
1990-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1990
DATE
1993-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1993
DATE
2000-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
2000
DATE
+1963^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal
1963
NUMBER
+2006^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal
2006
NUMBER
court
part of
point in time