Religious Freedom Restoration Act
|
|
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was a 1993 act by the United States Congress aimed at preventing laws which substantially burdened a person's free exercise of their religion. Part was later overturned by the United States Supreme Court because it overstepped Congress's authority by modifying state laws, but many states have passed their own mini-RFRAs, achieving the same effect.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the government may not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws which burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder). But in the 1980s the Court began allowing bans on religious activity, as long as they affected all religions equally. The key case was Employment Division v. Smith, in which the Court upheld the application of a law banning the use of peyote against Native Americans who used it in a religious ceremony.
In response, both liberal (like the ACLU) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the old test, overturning laws if "religious exercise is substantially burdened" by them, unless the law is the "least restrictive means" of furthering a "compelling governmental interest". The act passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed into law by President Clinton.
Later, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio, Texas wanted to tear down a church in Boerne, Texas. But a Boerne ordinance protected the church as a historic landmark and did not permit it to be torn down. The church sued, citing RFRA, and in the resulting case, City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA, stating that Congress could not overrule Supreme Court decisions nor pass broad laws affecting the laws of other states.
However, most scholars believe RFRA still applies to Federal acts (the US Congress can modify the interpretation of their own laws, after all) and a number of states have passed so-called mini-RFRAs, applying the rule to the laws of their own state.
This interpetation is due to be tested in the 2005-2006 Supreme Court term as the court will hear a case,Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, which involves the use of an illegal substance in a religious ceremony.
External Links
- Text of the statute (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21B.html)
- Unconstitutional Restoration (http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1gupta.html) - A Princeton Law Review article on the history, interpretation, and status of the Act.