I WILL MARK BRAINLIEST PLS HELP

Smith and Black were fired from their roles as counselors at a private drug rehabilitation organization for ingesting a powerful hallucinogen, peyote, as part of a religious ceremony at their Native American Church. They then applied for unemployment compensation, but were denied because the reason for their dismissal was work-related "misconduct.”

In the resulting case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that no constitutional violation had occurred. The court stated that individuals are obligated to follow the law that bans the use of peyote, which is a general law for everyone who may possess peyote, for religious or nonreligious reasons.

The court stated that the "compelling government interest test” of previous litigation was inapplicable to "an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct.”

a) Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) and Employment Division v. Smith.

b) Based on the constitutional clause identified in part A, explain why the facts of Employment Division v. Smith might have led to a different holding than the holding in Wisconsin v. Yoder.

c) Describe an action that members of the public who disagree with the holding in Employment Division v. Smith could take to limit its impact.