Religious Freedom Restoration Act 107 Stat. 1488 (1993)

• Author: Scott C. Idleman
• Pages: 2181-2183

Page 2181

The FIRST AMENDMENT free exercise clause provides that "Congress shall make no law ? prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, a limitation that today extends to all branches and levels of government, including states and localities. Until the 1960s, the clause had been narrowly interpreted: although religious belief was protected absolutely, religious conduct was protected only in limited circumstances, such as from intentionally discriminatory laws. Beginning with SHERBERT V. VERNER (1963), however, the Supreme Court broadened its interpretation, holding that the clause barred at least some unintentional, INCIDENTAL BURDENS resulting from the application of otherwise valid laws or policies. In WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972), for example, the Court held that the Old Order Amish

Page 2182

could not be required by state law to send their children to school beyond the eighth grade, even though the law applied uniformly to all Wisconsin citizens and did not intentionally discriminate against or burden religion.

In 1990, the Court again narrowed the scope of the clause. In EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF OREGON V. SMITH (1990) the Court confined the Sherbert?Yoder standard to cases involving similar factual or legal claims and held that the clause normally does not prohibit laws that incidentally burden religious practices, as long as they are "neutral" (i.e., not aimed at religion) and "generally applicable" (i.e., applicable to a broad range of persons or activities).

Smith ignited a firestorm of criticism, eventually prompting Congress to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Initially cosponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch and Edward Kennedy, and supported by a diverse coalition of religious and other organizations, RFRA overwhelmingly passed the U.S. SENATE and the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and was signed into law by President WILLIAM J. CLINTON on November 16, 1993.

RFRA's principal purpose was "to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in [ Sherbert and Yoder ] and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.?" Specifically, RFRA provided that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" unless "it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person?(1) is in furtherance of a compelling...