Content deleted Content added
clearer phrasing |
Vinnylospo (talk | contribs) |
||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{about||state versions of the RFRA|State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|the Indiana legislation|Indiana SB 101}}▼
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
▲{{Short description|1993 United States Law}}
{{Use mdy dates|date = August 2012}}
▲{{about||state versions of the RFRA|State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|the Indiana legislation|Indiana SB 101}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
| fullname = An Act to protect the free exercise of religion.
| acronym = RFRA
| nickname =
| enacted by = 103rd
| effective date = November 16, 1993
Line 13:
| cite public law = 103-141
| cite statutes at large = {{USStat|107|1488}}
| acts amended =
| acts repealed =
| title amended = [[Title 42 of the United States Code|42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare]]
| sections created = {{Usc-title-chap|42|21B}} § 2000bb et seq.
| sections amended =
| leghisturl = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01308:@@@S
| introducedin = House
| introducedbill = {{USBill|103|H.R.|1308}}
| introducedby = [[Chuck Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]
| introduceddate = March 11, 1993
| committees = [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary]], [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary]]
Line 34:
| agreeddate3 = November 3, 1993
| agreedvote3 = without objection
| signedpresident = [[Bill
| signeddate = November 16, 1993
| amendments =
| SCOTUS cases = {{ubl|''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]''
}}
The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993''', Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at {{USC|42|2000bb}} through {{USC|42|2000bb-4}} (also known as '''RFRA''', pronounced "rifra"<ref>{{Cite web|title=Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act Overview|url=https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/discrimination/federal-religious-freedom-restoration-act-overview.html|access-date=2021-03-22|website=Findlaw|language=en-US}}</ref>), is a 1993 [[United States federal law]] that "ensures that interests in [[Religion|religious]] freedom are protected."<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf</ref> The [[Bill (proposed law)|bill]] was introduced by Congressman [[Chuck Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[New York (state)|NY]]) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by [[Ted Kennedy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[Massachusetts|MA]]) the same day. A unanimous [[U.S. House]] and a nearly unanimous [[U.S. Senate]]—three senators voted against passage<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/|title=1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?|work=The Volokh Conspiracy|date=December 2, 2013}}</ref>—passed the bill, and President [[Bill Clinton]] signed it into law.▼
▲The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993''', Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at {{USC|42|2000bb}} through {{USC|42|2000bb-4}} (also known as '''RFRA''', pronounced "rifra"<ref>{{Cite web|title=Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act Overview|url=https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/discrimination/federal-religious-freedom-restoration-act-overview.html|access-date=2021-03-22|website=Findlaw|language=en-US}}</ref>), is a 1993 [[United States federal law]] that "ensures that interests in [[
RFRA as applied to the states was held unconstitutional by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] in the ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of [[Congressional power of enforcement|Congress's enforcement power]]. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'' (2006) and ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]'' (2014). These cases did not consider whether Congress was violating the [[Establishment Clause]] if it carves out exemptions based on religious laws from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' and other related RFR issues, twenty-one individual states have passed [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts]] that apply to state governments and local municipalities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx|title=State Religious Freedom Acts|work=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref>▼
The law was passed in response to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]'s 1990 decision in ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', which held that "neutral laws of general applicability" that burden the free exercise of religion do not violate the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. RFRA requires that [[strict scrutiny]] be applied to any law that burdens religious freedom, providing that such a law may only be justified if it is the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling government interest.
▲While RFRA
==Provisions==
This law reinstated the [[Sherbert Test]], which was set forth by ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'', and ''[[Wisconsin v. Yoder]]'', mandating that [[strict scrutiny]] be used when determining whether the [[Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment|Free Exercise Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;<ref name="RFRA">
The law provided an exception if two conditions are met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."<ref name="Utter"/> Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly
==Background and passage==
{{See also|American Indian Religious Freedom Act|Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act}}
[[File:Peyote ceremony tipi.jpg|thumb|200px | right | This [[tipi]] is used for [[peyote]] ceremonies in the [[Native American Church]], the religion at the center of
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'', [[court citation|374 U.S. 398]] (1963); ''[[Wisconsin v. Yoder]]'', [[court citation|406 U.S. 205]] (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens.
But "generally applicable" bans frequently conflicted with [[Native American religion|Native American religious practice]]. Often, government projects required acquisition of sacred grounds necessary for Native American rituals.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Waldman|first1=Carl|url=https://archive.org/details/atlasofnorthamer00wald|title=Atlas of the North American Indian|publisher=Checkmark Books|year=2009|isbn=978-0-8160-6859-3|location=New York|url-access=registration}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> Ritual [[peyote]] use infringed on the federal [[war on drugs]]. And the [[American Indian Religious Freedom Act]], which Congress had passed to protect tribal religious freedoms, lacked an enforcement mechanism.
These interests collided in ''[[Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association]]'', 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
In ''Lyng'', members of the [[Yurok people|Yurok]], [[Tolowa]] and [[Karok]] tribes argued that the [[First Amendment of the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] should prevent the [[United States Forest Service|U.S. Forest Service]] from constructing a road through sacred land used in ceremonies and prayer. The Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that only government coercion or punishment for religious beliefs would violate the First Amendment.<ref name="Duthu">{{cite book |last1=Duthu |first1=Bruce N. |year=2009 |title=American Indians and the Law |pages=111–2 |publisher=Penguin Books |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-311478-9}}</ref>
In ''Smith'', the Court upheld the state of [[Oregon]]'s refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for [[mescaline]], the main psychoactive compound in the [[peyote]] cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony.<ref>''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', 494 U.S. 872 (1990).</ref>
The ''Smith'' decision outraged the public.
===Applicability===
The RFRA applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."<ref>42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3 Applicability</ref>
According to a federal appeals court ruling on March 7, 2018, the RFRA
==Challenges and weaknesses==
[[File:Peyote Cactus.jpg|thumb|200px | right | The [[peyote cactus]], the source of the [[mescaline]] used by some Native Americans in religious ceremonies.]]
In 1997, part of this act was overturned by the [[United States Supreme Court]]. The [[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio]] wanted to enlarge a church in [[Boerne, Texas]], but a Boerne ordinance protected the building 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]]'', {{Ussc|521|507|1997}}, the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA with respect to its applicability to States (but not Federally), stating that Congress had stepped beyond
A number of states have passed [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|state RFRAs]], applying the rule to the laws of their own state, but the ''Smith'' case remains the authority in these matters in many states.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Canby |first1=William C. |year=2004 |title=American Indian Law |page=[https://archive.org/details/america_can_2004_00_7706/page/344 344] |publisher=West Publishing |location=St. Paul |isbn=0-314-14640-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/america_can_2004_00_7706/page/344 }}</ref>
The constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government was confirmed on February 21, 2006, as the Supreme Court ruled against the government in ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'', {{Ussc|546|418|2006}}, which involved the use of an otherwise illegal substance in a religious ceremony, stating that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious conduct.<ref>When the US Supreme Court, in its judgment of 21 February 2006 on the case ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'' (no. 04-1084 ), held that the sacramental use of [[hoasca]] (a tea leaf containing hallucinogen) cannot be inhibited to believers of that confession, it did so under clause general contained in the religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which leaves it to the judge to decide if there is a burden unfairly overloaded by the government on the free exercise of the religion of its citizens: {{cite journal|last1=Buonomo|first1=Giampiero|title
Post-''Smith'', many members of the [[Native American Church]] still had issues using [[peyote]] in their ceremonies. This led to the [[American Indian Religious Freedom Act|Religious Freedom Act Amendments in 1994]], which state, "the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremony purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any state. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation."<ref name="Utter"/>
''[[Tanzin v. Tanvir]]'' (2020) determined that RFRA allows for those whose religious rights are adversely affected by federal officers acting in their capacity for the government
==Applications and effects==
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds the federal government responsible for accepting additional obligations to protect religious exercise. In ''O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons'', it was found that the RFRA governs the actions of federal officers and agencies and that the RFRA can be applied to "internal operations of the federal government."<ref>{{cite book|author1-link=Gregory Sisk |last1=Sisk |first1=Gregory |year=2006 |title=Litigation with the federal government |publisher=American Law Institute |isbn=0-8318-0865-9}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> RFRA, in conjunction with President [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[List of executive actions by Bill Clinton|executive order]] in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.<ref name="Utter"/>
As of 1996, the year before the RFRA was found unconstitutional as applied to states, 337 cases had cited RFRA in its three-year time range.<ref name="Richardson">{{cite book |last1=Richardson |first1=James |year=2004 |title=Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic |isbn=0-306-47886-2}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> It was also found that Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of [[Religion in the United States#Statistics|religious membership in the U.S.]], make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion.<ref name="Richardson"/>
Line 86 ⟶ 95:
In ''[[Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service]]'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] held that the use of recycled sewage water in order to manufacture artificial snow in the [[San Francisco Peaks]] was not a "substantial burden" on the religious freedom of Native Americans.<ref name="Enbanc">{{cite court |litigants=Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service |vol=535 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1058 |court=9th Cir. |date=2008 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1324254/navajo-nation-v-us-forest-service/ |access-date=2017-10-07 }}</ref>
The RFRA figured prominently in oral arguments in the case, ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby]],'' heard by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-date=February 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202013843/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> In a
==20th anniversary==
Line 97 ⟶ 106:
==See also==
* [[Freedom of religion in the United States]]
* [[Reuben Snake]]
* [[War on Drugs]]
Line 108 ⟶ 118:
* [http://bjconline.org/rfra/ RFRA history and resources from the Baptist Joint Committee]
* [http://bjconline.org/rfra-symposium/ Baptist Joint Committee page dedicated to Newseum symposium]
{{US1stAmendment Free Exercise Clause Supreme Court case law}}
[[Category:1993 in American law]]
Line 114 ⟶ 126:
[[Category:1993 in religion]]
[[Category:United States legislation about religion]]
[[Category:Ted Kennedy]]
[[Category:Chuck Schumer]]
| |||