Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988

Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division - Significance, The Lower Court Rulings, The Supreme Court Decides

petitioner william paul constitutional

Petitioner

Eddie C. Thomas

Respondent

Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

Petitioner's Claim

That the Indiana Employment Security Division's refusal to grant unemployment benefits to Thomas, a Jehovah's Witness who quit his job for religious reasons, violated his right to free exercise of religion.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Blanca Bianchi de la Torre

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

William E. Daily

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

6 April 1981

Decision

The Indiana Employment Security Division did in fact violate Thomas' constitutional right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Related Cases

  • Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
  • Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
  • Walz v. Tax Commisioner, 397 U.S. 664 (1970).
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Further Readings

  • Ducat, Craig R. and Harold W. Chase. Constitutional Interpretation. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1988.
  • Greenslaw, Paul S., and John P. Kohl. "Religious Freedom and Unemployment Compensation Benefits." Public Personnel Management, Fall 1995.
  • Seeger, Steven C. "Restoring Rights to Rites." Michigan Law Review, March 1997, p. 1472.
Thompson v. Oklahoma - A Question Of Age, The Consensus Of Society, Amnesty International On Capital Punishment [next] [back] Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman - Significance, Higher Courts' Decisions, Higher Courts' Decisions Affirmed, Impact, Privileges And Immunities Clause: Residency Requirements

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or