Key Takeaways

1. Sherbert v. Verner established the "Sherbert Test," a legal standard that requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest before substantially burdening an individual's free exercise of religion.
2. The Supreme Court’s decision marked a major expansion of First Amendment protections for religious practices, particularly in the context of government benefits and regulations.
3. Although later limited by Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Sherbert v. Verner remains a cornerstone in religious liberty jurisprudence and continues to influence debates about religious exemptions and government authority.

Introduction

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), stands as a seminal Supreme Court case interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision arose from a conflict between South Carolina’s unemployment compensation rules and the religious observance of Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist who was denied unemployment benefits after refusing to work on her Sabbath. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in favor of Sherbert not only resolved her individual dispute but also set forth a broad principle: government actions that substantially burden religious exercise must be justified by a compelling state interest, achieved by the least restrictive means.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Sherbert v. Verner, exploring its background, the Court’s reasoning, the development of the Sherbert Test, its subsequent impact on American law, and its enduring relevance in contemporary legal debates.

Background of Sherbert v. Verner

The Facts of the Case

Adell Sherbert, a devout member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, worked as a textile mill operator in South Carolina. Her faith strictly prohibited her from working on Saturdays, which she observed as the Sabbath. After her employer switched to a six-day workweek, Sherbert refused to work Saturdays and was consequently fired. When she sought new employment, she continued to refuse any jobs requiring Saturday work, citing her religious beliefs.

Sherbert applied for unemployment benefits, but the South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her claim. The Commission reasoned that her refusal to accept suitable work without good cause (as defined by state law) made her ineligible for benefits. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the denial, prompting Sherbert to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

At the heart of the case was the question: Did the denial of unemployment benefits to Sherbert, based on her refusal to work on her Sabbath, violate her rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? The state argued that its rules were neutral and generally applicable, while Sherbert contended that the law’s application forced her to choose between her faith and her livelihood.

For more details, see the official Oyez summary and Justia case documentation.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority Opinion

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., writing for the majority, reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision. The Court held that the state’s denial of benefits placed a significant burden on Sherbert’s free exercise of religion. According to Brennan, the effect of the law was to force Sherbert to choose between following her religious convictions and receiving unemployment benefits, a choice the Constitution does not permit unless justified by a compelling governmental interest.

The Court rejected South Carolina’s argument that the eligibility rule was neutral and generally applicable. Instead, the majority found that the rule, as applied, discriminated against religious conduct.

The Sherbert Test

The decision articulated what became known as the Sherbert Test, a two-step analysis for evaluating Free Exercise Clause claims:

1. Substantial Burden: Does the government action impose a substantial burden on the individual’s free exercise of religion?
2. Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means: If so, can the government demonstrate a compelling state interest that justifies the burden, and is the law the least restrictive means of achieving that interest?

This framework required courts to scrutinize laws that impinged on religious practices, placing the burden on the government to justify such intrusions.

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Harlan and White dissented. Justice Harlan argued that the state’s law was neutral and did not specifically target religious practices. He warned that granting religious exemptions from neutral laws could lead to excessive entanglement between church and state, undermining the very principle of neutrality.

Legal Reasoning and Constitutional Principles

The Free Exercise Clause

The First Amendment provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Free Exercise Clause protects not only religious beliefs but also, to a significant degree, religiously motivated conduct.

In Sherbert, the Supreme Court recognized that laws which burden religious conduct—even if facially neutral—can violate the Free Exercise Clause unless justified by a compelling interest. The majority opinion emphasized that the government cannot condition the receipt of a benefit (here, unemployment compensation) on the surrender of a constitutional right.

Compelling State Interest

The state advanced two main interests: preventing fraudulent claims and maintaining uniform eligibility standards. The Court found these interests insufficiently compelling to justify the substantial burden imposed on Sherbert’s religious practice. The state failed to demonstrate that granting an exemption to Sherbert would undermine the administration of its unemployment system or open the floodgates to fraudulent claims.

Least Restrictive Means

The Court also held that, even if the state had a compelling interest, it must pursue that interest by the least restrictive means. In Sherbert’s case, the state could accommodate her religious practice without jeopardizing its broader regulatory goals.

For further reading, see the Teaching American History summary and the Berkley Center case analysis.

The Sherbert Test: Application and Impact

Immediate Effects

The Sherbert Test became the prevailing standard for Free Exercise claims for nearly three decades. Courts applying the test would first determine if a law imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise. If so, the government had to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives.

This test led to greater judicial scrutiny of laws affecting religious practices and prompted many states and agencies to craft religious exemptions in their regulations.

Expansion to Other Contexts

The reasoning in Sherbert was soon extended beyond unemployment benefits. For example, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court relied on the Sherbert Test to strike down compulsory school attendance laws as applied to Amish parents who objected on religious grounds. The Sherbert Test became a powerful tool for religious minorities seeking accommodation from generally applicable laws.

Criticisms and Limitations

Critics of the Sherbert framework argued that it risked granting religious individuals and groups preferential treatment, potentially undermining the rule of law and the principle of equality. Others contended that the test was difficult to apply consistently and placed an onerous burden on the government.

Employment Division v. Smith and the Decline of the Sherbert Test

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court dramatically curtailed the Sherbert Test. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. The Smith decision marked a significant shift, prompting Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to restore the Sherbert Test standard in federal law.

For more on this shift, see the First Amendment Encyclopedia and the National Constitution Center.

Legacy and Continuing Relevance

Influence on Federal and State Law

Even after Smith, the Sherbert Test continues to influence religious liberty law. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), enacted in 1993, explicitly reinstated the compelling interest/least restrictive means test for federal government actions. Many states have adopted their own versions of RFRA, applying similar standards to state and local laws.

The Sherbert Test remains relevant in cases involving federal law and in states with RFRA statutes. It also informs debates about the proper balance between religious freedom and governmental interests.

Ongoing Debates

Contemporary controversies—such as religious objections to vaccination mandates, contraception coverage, and anti-discrimination laws—often invoke the principles established in Sherbert. Courts continue to grapple with how to accommodate religious practices without undermining important public policies.

The case is frequently cited in legal scholarship and court opinions as a touchstone for understanding the Free Exercise Clause. Legal educators, such as those at the Federalist Society and Ballotpedia, regularly reference Sherbert in discussions of religious liberty.

Broader Implications

Sherbert v. Verner’s legacy is not confined to religious liberty. The case stands as a broader affirmation of constitutional rights against government encroachment. Its insistence that the government justify substantial burdens on fundamental rights has influenced other areas of constitutional law, including free speech, privacy, and equal protection.

Notable Subsequent Cases

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

In this case, the Supreme Court applied the Sherbert Test to invalidate Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law as applied to Amish families. The Court found that forcing Amish children to attend school beyond eighth grade substantially burdened their religious practice and that the state’s interest in compulsory education was not compelling enough to justify the burden.

Thomas v. Review Board (1981)

The Court, relying on Sherbert, held that a Jehovah’s Witness who refused to work in armaments production due to his beliefs was entitled to unemployment benefits. The decision reinforced the principle that the state must accommodate sincere religious objections unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

As discussed above, Smith marked a departure from Sherbert, holding that neutral, generally applicable laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, even if they incidentally burden religion. This decision significantly limited the scope of religious exemptions under the Constitution.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

While not a direct application of Sherbert, the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby relied on RFRA, which incorporates the Sherbert Test, to hold that closely held corporations could claim religious exemptions from certain federal regulations (in this case, contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act).

Policy and Social Considerations

Balancing Religious Freedom and Public Policy

Sherbert v. Verner highlights the ongoing tension between protecting individual religious liberty and ensuring the effective administration of government programs. The case underscores the importance of accommodating religious practices while recognizing that not all government interests are compelling enough to override constitutional rights.

Religious Minorities and Legal Protections

Sherbert’s legacy is especially significant for religious minorities, who are often most affected by generally applicable laws that conflict with their beliefs. The case affirms that constitutional protections are not limited to mainstream faiths but extend to all sincere religious practices.

Critiques and Counterarguments

Some legal scholars and policymakers argue that the Sherbert Test, if applied too broadly, could undermine the uniform application of the law and create administrative challenges. Others contend that robust protection for religious exercise is essential to a pluralistic society and a fundamental constitutional value.

Conclusion

Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark in American constitutional law, establishing a powerful standard for protecting religious exercise against government burdens. The Sherbert Test’s requirement that the government demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means continues to shape legal debates, even after being limited by later Supreme Court decisions. The case’s influence is evident in federal and state statutes, judicial opinions, and ongoing disputes over religious liberty.

For attorneys, scholars, and anyone interested in constitutional rights, Sherbert v. Verner offers essential insights into the balance between individual freedoms and government authority. For more in-depth legal research and analysis, visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Sherbert v. Verner and related legal principles. It is not legal advice and does not substitute for consulting a qualified attorney or conducting detailed legal research. The law is complex and subject to change; nuances and exceptions may apply in specific circumstances.