§ 1513(d)(3). Appellants advocate the position taken by the Supreme Court of South Dakota, that in order to be exempted under this provision a tax must take the place of another tax that historically had been applied to the airline property. The fact that a property tax is applied to the exclusion of all other property taxes is immaterial, appellants assert, unless some past tax was actually replaced by the present tax. Because South Dakota's taxation of airline flight property has always taken the form of the taxation. scheme at issue in this case, appellants argue, the South Dakota Airline Flight Property Tax is not a true "in lieu tax."

Admittedly the phrase "in lieu tax" is open to this interpretation. The illogical results of applying such an interpretation, however, argue strongly against the conclusion that Congress intended these results when it drafted § 1513(d)(3).

Under the interpretation appellants advocate, the question whether a tax would be exempted under the in lieu tax provision would, at best, turn on historical fortuity. The identical taxation scheme South Dakota utilizes would be exempted under § 1513(d)(3) if South Dakota had at one time applied some other taxation scheme to airline flight property. Thus, if at one time the proceeds of the airline flight property tax had gone to general state expenditures rather than directly to the benefit of airports and airlines, the present tax would be exempted. Because South Dakota has always chosen to devote its taxes on airline flight property solely to the benefit of those airlines, it is not exempted, according to appellants. Why a State that has consistently chosen to levy, to the exclusion of all other property taxes, a tax utilized wholly for aeronautical purposes should be penalized for its consistency is unexplained.

At worst, appellants' interpretation of § 1513(d)(3) would do no more than place a meaningless hurdle before state legislatures seeking to conform their tax scheme to the requirements of this provision. A closer examination of how this proposed replacement requirement would operate in

practice illustrates the point. Appellants do not suggestand have no basis upon which to suggest that in order to be an "in lieu tax" under § 1513(d)(3) the airline flight property tax must have replaced some other tax by the effective date of the federal provision. If one tax must replace another, therefore, the replacement could take place at any time. Moreover, it could not be a condition of § 1513(d)(3) coverage that the "in lieu tax" replace a tax that had met the antidiscrimination restrictions of § 1513(d). If the tax described in § 1513(d)(3) could replace only a tax that met all the requirements of § 1513(d)(1), then § 1513(d)(3) would not be an exemption at all; it would simply add a restriction on how the taxes could be spent with no corresponding latitude on how they may be collected. Ultimately, therefore, South Dakota could satisfy appellants' interpretation of § 1513(d)(3) by simply amending its tax code so that its airline flight property tax took some other form, then the following session substituting for that tax a tax utilized wholly for aeronautical purposes. This exercise of replacing one tax with another, while contributing somewhat to a state legislature's workload, would contribute nothing to the policies of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act.

In sum, the language of § 1513(d)(3), while at first glance ambiguous, should be interpreted in a manner that comports with the policies of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. That interpretation is that § 1513(d)(3) exempts from the antidiscrimination provisions of § 1513(d)(1) a tax on airline flight property, applied to the exclusion of any other possible tax on that property, the proceeds of which are wholly utilized for airport and aeronautical purposes. Because the South Dakota Airline Flight Property Tax fits this description, it does not violate the antidiscrimination provisions of § 1513(d). For this reason, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Dakota is

Affirmed.

Neither in responding to appellants' jurisdictional statement nor in their brief on the merits did appellees defend the airlines tax as an in-lieu tax; and as my dissenting vote indicated, I thought it inappropriate to call for further briefing and sua sponte pose the in-lieu issue rather than to address what I thought to be the plainly improvident ground on which the South Dakota Supreme Court sustained the tax. But the Court's action is surely within its power, for the in-lieu issue was raised and decided in the South Dakota courts. That question is now before us, and the Court having correctly decided it, I join its opinion.

HOBBIE v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF FLORIDA ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT

No. 85-993. Argued December 10, 1986-Decided February 25, 1987 After 21⁄2 years, appellant informed her employer that she was joining the Seventh-day Adventist Church and that, for religious reasons, she would no longer be able to work at the employer's jewelry store on her Sabbath. When she refused to work scheduled shifts on Friday evenings and Saturdays, she was discharged. She then filed a claim for unemployment compensation, which was denied by a claims examiner for "misconduct connected with [her] work" under the applicable Florida statute, and the Unemployment Appeals Commission (Appeals Commission) affirmed. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Commission's order.

Held: Florida's refusal to award unemployment compensation benefits to appellant violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398; Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. Pp. 139-146.

(a) When a State denies receipt of a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, that denial must be subjected to strict scrutiny and can be justified only by proof of a compelling state interest. The Appeals Commission did not seriously contend that its infringement could withstand strict scrutiny, and there is no merit to its contention that justification for the infringement should be determined under the less rigorous standard of demonstrating that the challenged requirement for governmental benefits was a reasonable means of promoting a legitimate public interest. Pp. 141-142.

(b) The denial of benefits to appellant cannot be justified on the ground that, under Florida law, appellant was not completely ineligible for benefits but was disqualified only for a limited time. Pp. 142-143.

(c) Nor can the denial of benefits be upheld on the ground that the conflict between work and religious belief was not caused by the employer's alteration of the conditions of employment after appellant was hired, but was caused, instead, by appellant's conversion during the course of her employment. Pp. 143-144.

(d) There is no merit to the Appeals Commission's argument that awarding benefits to appellant would violate the Establishment Clause

of the First Amendment.

The accommodation of religious practices here would not entangle the State in an unlawful fostering of religion. Pp. 144-145.

475 So. 2d 711, reversed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., post, p. 146, and STEVENS, J., post, p. 147, filed opinions concurring in the judgment. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 146.

Walter E. Carson argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Mitchell A. Tyner and Frank M. Palmour.

John D. Maher argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee Unemployment Appeals Commission.*

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant's employer discharged her when she refused to work certain scheduled hours because of sincerely held religious convictions adopted after beginning employment. The question to be decided is whether Florida's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to appellant violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.1

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for The American Jewish Congress et al. by Ronald A. Krauss, Marc D. Stern, and Jack D. Novik; for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs et al. by Donald R. Brewer; for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights by Steven Frederick McDowell; for the Council on Religious Freedom by Lee Boothby, James M. Parker, and Robert W. Nixon; and for the Rutherford Institute et al. by W. Charles Bundren, James J. Knicely, Alfred J. Lindh, and William B. Hollberg.

Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Ayer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Carvin, and Roger Clegg filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.

'An employer's duty to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. Hobbie has not sought relief pursuant to Title VII in this action.