 | This articlerelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this article by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "United States v. Lee" 1982 – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| United States v. Lee | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 2, 1981 Decided February 23, 1982 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Lee |
| Citations | 455U.S.252 (more) 102 S. Ct. 1051; 71L. Ed. 2d 127 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 497F. Supp.180 (W.D. Pa. 1980) |
| Holding | |
| The tax imposed on employers to support theSocial Security System does not violate theFree Exercise Clause due to its need to be uniformly applicable and its accomplishment of an overriding governmental interest. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Stevens |
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), was aUnited States Supreme Court case establishingprecedent regarding the limits offree exercise of religious conscience by employers.
The appellant, anAmish employer, sued theFederal Government of the United States following an assessment for unpaidSocial Security taxes, claiming that the imposition of such taxes violated his freedom of conscience. TheDistrict Court had found in favor of the appellant.
Chief JusticeWarren Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, with Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, joining, and Justice Stevens separately concurring.
The Court's opinion held that the tax imposed on employers to support the social security system must be uniformly applicable to all, except if theUnited States Congress explicitly provides otherwise. The Court's majority opinion explained its reasoning:
The conclusion that there is a conflict between the Amish faith and the obligations imposed by the social security system is only the beginning, however, and not the end of the inquiry. Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. See, e. g.,Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944);Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest ...Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from theFree Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.[1]
Lee was cited duringoral arguments inBurwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), a case about how the contraception requirement in thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act affected closely held for-profit corporations.[2]