World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

United States V. Lee (1982)

Article Id: WHEBN0038722428
Reproduction Date:

Title: United States V. Lee (1982)  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Censorship of student media, Ginsberg v. New York, Social Security (United States), Zorach v. Clauson, Adderley v. Florida
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

United States V. Lee (1982)

Argued November 2, 1981
Decided February 23, 1982
Full case name United States v. Lee
Citations 455 U.S. 282 (more)
The tax imposed on employers to support the Social Security System does not violate the Free 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 a United States Supreme Court case establishing precedent regarding the limits of free exercise of religious conscience by employers.


The appellant, an Amish employer, sued the Federal Government of the United States following an assessment for unpaid Social Security taxes, claiming that the imposition of such taxes violated his freedom of conscience. The District Court had found in favor of the appellant.


Chief Justice Warren 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 the United 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 the Free 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]

Use as precedent

Lee was cited during oral arguments in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), a case about how the contraception requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act affected closely held for-profit corporations.[2]

See also


  1. ^ United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)
  2. ^ "Live Blog: Contraception Cases at Supreme Court". Wall Street Journal blogs. March 25, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014. 

Further reading

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.