Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|1993 United States Lawfederal law}}

| nickname =

| effective date = November 16, 17381993

| acts amended =

| acts repealed =

| sections amended =

| introducedby = [[Chuck Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-–[[New York (state)|NY]])

| signedpresident = [[Bill Clinton|William J. Clinton]]

| amendments =

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">Religious Freedom Restoration Act full text at [http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text)]</ref> therefore, the Act states that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."<ref name="Utter">{{cite book |last1=Utter |first1=Jack |year=2001 |title=American Indians: Answers to Today's Questions |page=159 |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press |isbn=0-8061-3309-0}}</ref>

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 withto core constitutional issues.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Ross |first1=Susan |year=2004 |title=Deciding communication law: key cases in context |location=New Jersey |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=0-8058-4698-0}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

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>

According to a federal appeals court ruling on March 7, 2018, the RFRA doesdid not justify discrimination against employees on the basis of their lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity in those circumstances.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Mark Joseph|title=Businesses Can't Fire Trans Employees for Religious Reasons, Federal Appeals Court Rules in Landmark Decision|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/sixth-circuit-rules-businesses-cant-fire-transgender-employees-for-religious-reasons.html|access-date=8 March 2018|publisher=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date=7 March 2018}}</ref> However, on October 15, 2019, federal judge [[Reed O'Connor|Reed O’Connor]] said that, because of the RFRA, federally-funded healthcare insurers and providers must be allowed to deny medical treatment and coverage on the basis of the sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy of the person who is requesting the services, even if the services are medically necessary. Transgender people may be turned down even if the healthcare service they need is not related to their being transgender.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465939-federal-judge-overturns-obamacare-transgender-protections|title=Federal judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections|last=Weixel|first=Nathaniel|date=2019-10-15|website=TheHill[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=2019-10-15}}</ref>

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 theirits power of enforcement provided in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref name="Nussbaum"/> In response to the ''Boerne'' ruling, Congress passed the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious land owners.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hamilton |first1=Marci |year=2005 |title=God vs. the gavel: religion and the rule of law |location=Cambridge, NY |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85304-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/godvsgavelreligi00hami }}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref>

''[[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 mayto seek appropriate remedies, including monetary damages, from those individuals. The case involved three Muslim men, otherwiseall legal residents of the United States, thatwho had been placed on the [[No Fly List]] by FBI agents for refusing to be informants for their fellow Muslim communities.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/945000341/supreme-court-says-muslim-men-can-sue-fbi-agents-in-no-fly-list-case | title = Supreme Court Says Muslim Men Can Sue FBI Agents In No-Fly List Case | first= Nina | last= Totenberg | date = December 10, 2020 | access-date = December 11, 2020 | work = [[NPR]] }}</ref>

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"/>