This "Smith decision," Employment Division v. Smith, provoked a fierce reaction that has energized the drive for more legislative protections for religion ever since.

In Employment Division, Justice Scalia wrote for a 5-to-4 majority denying a constitutional right of believers to defy evenhandedly applied secular laws.

Many people might consider that case, which bore the forgettable title Employment Division v. Smith, either impossibly technical or faintly exotic.

The United States Supreme Court deferred action for months, until it decided the peyote case, Employment Division v. Smith.

The Employment Division v. Smith decision, the Supreme Court maintained a "neutral law of general applicability" can be used to limit religion exercises.

This test was eventually all-but-eliminated in Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment.

(Employment Division v. Smith, No. 88-1213.)

This view of the Free Exercise Clause would begin to narrow again in the 1980s, culminating in the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith.

Note the case full name: "Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith".