Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990)A rehabilitation clinic fired two drug rehabilitation counselors for using peyote during a religious ceremony. Both councilors, including Smith, applied for unemployment benefits. Possession of peyote is a criminal offense in the state of Oregon. The rehab clinic denied counselors unemployment for misconduct. Smith filed a new lawsuit against the clinic. The Oregon Supreme Court overturned the rehabilitation clinic's verdict. The court said Smith's religious use of peyote was protected by the First Amendment's freedom of religion. The Department of Resources' Employment Division appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that possession and use of peyote constitutes a crime. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Oregon state courts to determine whether Oregon law prohibits the use and possession of peyote for religious purposes. The Oregon state court ruled that using illegal drugs for religious purposes is still considered illegal; however, they were also aware that this decision also violated the First Amendment. The main question is whether the government can prevent the religious use of peyote under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, even if a law prohibits it for everyone. Additionally, can the state deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired for using peyote for religious purposes? The Supreme Court overturned the decision, finding that Smith et al. used their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their use of illegal drugs. Additionally, the judges held that the law applied to the general public and not to a single religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, immigration reform remains a highly controversial issue today. Unfortunately, most of the negativity is due to money and resources. The problem in the Plyler V Doe case arose because Texas was trying to find a wage for raising its illegal children without burdening its legal aliens and citizens. Plyler v. Doe raises larger themes such as the fairness of our children and how society will treat its illegal children. Children of illegal immigrants should not be held responsible for the actions of their parents; therefore they should not be punished for their parents' decisions. Our children are our future and, for the good of society, we have an obligation to provide education to all. 2382 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US. 205 (1972)