a. Writing for the dissent, Blackmun says he agrees with O’Connor (and thus disagree with the majority) that Scherbert should apply.
b. But he holds there is no compelling state interest here. 23 states have exceptions for peyote use among Native Americans, and thus there is no evidence that the religious use of peyote ever harmed anyone. “The circumscribed ritual context in which Native Americans used peyote is far removed from the irresponsible and unrestricted recreational use of unlawful drugs.”
c. The values and interests of the Native Americans are congruent with those the State seeks to promote through its drugs laws—self-reliance, familial responsibility, and abstinence from alcohol—much like the situation in Yodel.
d. The majority argues that if Native Americans were given a peyote exemption, a flood of Free Exercise claims would come from other groups. But this argument can be made in almost any Free Exercise case. It’s purely speculative with no support.
e. The majority and O’Connor’s holding will seriously interfere with Ps’ worship. This is at odds with a goal of federal policy of protecting the religious freedom of Native Americans.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to State Blackmun’s Dissent on Smith’s case.. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.