Regulating Religion, by Catharine Cookson
Catharine Cookson, the director of the Center for the Study of Religious Freedom at Virginia Wesleyan College, has added a new approach to the range of criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. In Smith, the court held that two state-funded drug counselors who took peyote during Native American Church services could be denied unemployment compensation because their actions violated the generally applicable narcotics laws. Cookson argues that Smith was wrongly decided, and that the courts in free exercise cases should follow a casuistry-based method.
This article is available to subscribers only. Please subscribe for full access—subscriptions begin at $2.95. Already have an online account? Log in now. Already a print subscriber? Create an online account for no additional cost.