494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Oregon v. Smith is a landmark decision from the United States Supreme Court that addressed the balance between the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and state law prohibiting the use of illegal substances.
Can the state of Oregon deny unemployment benefits to individuals who were dismissed from their jobs for using an illegal drug, peyote, as part of religious practices?
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not excuse individuals from compliance with a valid, neutral law of general applicability, even if the law incidentally burdens a particular religious practice.
Yes, the state of Oregon can deny unemployment benefits to individuals who were fired for the religious use of an illegal drug.
Oregon v. Smith is significant because it directly impacted the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, limiting the protection of religious exercise from generally applicable government regulations. This decision shifted the burden from the government to justify its interference with religious practices to individuals, who would need to comply with such laws unless specifically targeted. This led to the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which sought to restore the compelling interest test previously applied and protect religious exercise from governmental restrictions.