Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

1981 United States Supreme Court case
Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
Argued October 7, 1980
Decided April 6, 1981
Full case nameThomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division et al.
Citations450 U.S. 707 (more)
101 S. Ct. 1425; 67 L. Ed. 2d 624; 1981 U.S. LEXIS 11
Case history
PriorDecision of the State Employment Security Review Board reversed, 381 N.E.2d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978); reversed, 271 Ind. 233, 391 N.E.2d 1127 (1979); cert. granted, 444 U.S. 1070 (1980).
Holding
"The State's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion..."[1]
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityBurger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens; Blackmun (Parts I, II, III)
ConcurrenceBlackmun (concurring in part and concurring in the result)
DissentRehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), was a case[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, under Sherbert v. Verner (1963).[2]

Background

Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness, was initially hired to work in his employer's roll foundry, which fabricated sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but when the foundry was closed, he was transferred to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. Since all of the employer's remaining departments were engaged directly in the production of weapons, petitioner asked to be laid off. When that request was denied, he quit, asserting that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in the production of weapons. He was denied unemployment compensation benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.

Prior history

At an administrative hearing, Thomas testified that he believed that contributing to the production of arms violated his religion, but he could, in good conscience, engage indirectly in the production of materials that might be used ultimately to fabricate arms. The hearing referee found that petitioner had terminated his employment because of his religious convictions but held that petitioner was not entitled to benefits because his voluntary termination was not based upon a "good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work," as required by the Indiana statute.

The Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirmed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Indiana statute, as applied, improperly burdened petitioner's right to the free exercise of his religion. The Indiana Supreme Court vacated on petitioner's free exercise right, the burden justified by legitimate state interests.

Decision

The majority held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation violated Thomas' right to free exercise of religion.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981).
  2. ^ Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).

External links

  • Text of Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981) is available from: Cornell  CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections