Publishers Weekly
- Publisher's Weekly
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan's 1963 Sherbert decision declared that unemployment insurance couldn't be denied to a Seventh-Day Adventist for refusing to work on Saturdays. In 1990 the Sherbert precedent was abruptly and unexpectedly overturned in Justice Antonin Scalia's Employment Division v. Smith decision, denying unemployment insurance for a Native American alcoholism counselor fired for religious use of peyote. Epps, an Oregon law professor and former Washington Post reporter, tells the story of the high court's decision as a human drama involving Al Smith, a Klamath tribe member in his 60s with 27 years of sobriety when he was fired, and Oregon Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer, who designed and argued the case against Smith (without, as it happens, challenging Sherbert). Oregon was the only state that did not allow religious use of peyote, and its constitution guaranteed religious freedom in a peculiar way that could have invited a flood of challenges if Smith's claim prevailed. Smith's personal story is compelling: he had previously battled not only against alcoholism but against cultural annihilation, and he knew the importance of defending the use of peyote in Native American religion. On the other hand, Frohnmayer had fought against a religious cult, that of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, though that case involved the use of germ warfare. Epps provides a lively, powerful narrative to develop his drama (including a Frohnmayer family disease subplot that stirs sympathy but illuminates nothing central). In doing so, however, he leaves important issues unexplored, including the history, law and judicial philosophies involved. Readers with sophisticated knowledge of the subject may find this account wanting, but it touches on important issues that will appeal to a wide range of readers. Two b&w photos not seen by PW. (Mar.) Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
Library Journal
Epps is a law professor at the University of Oregon with an interest in the plight of Native Americans vis- -vis the American legal system, more specifically, their ability (or lack thereof) to exercise customary and traditional ceremonial rites and rituals in a manner unhindered by secular proscriptions against such things as use of controlled substances and narcotics. The book centers on the plight of a Klamath Indian who lost his job and was denied unemployment benefits because of his use of peyote, a mood-altering drug that members of the Native American Church (NAC) use as a sacrament in much the same manner as their white Christian brothers use wine or grape juice. The author traces the Indian struggle through both the state courts in Oregon and then the United States Supreme Court, where understanding of and sympathy for the spiritual use of peyote run about as strong as the justices' knowledge of pre-frontier Indian history. Although a forcefully worded conservative opinion from the Rehnquist court in 1990 rejected the NAC claims regarding peyote use, the author notes that since then both Congress and the Court have backed away from a perceived harsh stance toward Native customs. Recommended for academic and law libraries.--Philip Y. Blue, New York State Supreme Court Criminal Branch Law Lib., New York Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information.
