90 organizations requested that the Attorney General review and withdraw a 2007 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The memorandum wrongly interpreted RFRA as providing a blanket exemption to statutory non-discrimination laws. This threatens civil rights and religious freedom protections. The organizations argue RFRA was not intended to create exemptions to non-discrimination laws or grant broad free exercise rights to receive government funds without complying with regulations. Withdrawing the memorandum would disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA and prevent further harm.
90 organizations requested that the Attorney General review and withdraw a 2007 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The memorandum wrongly interpreted RFRA as providing a blanket exemption to statutory non-discrimination laws. This threatens civil rights and religious freedom protections. The organizations argue RFRA was not intended to create exemptions to non-discrimination laws or grant broad free exercise rights to receive government funds without complying with regulations. Withdrawing the memorandum would disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA and prevent further harm.
90 organizations requested that the Attorney General review and withdraw a 2007 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The memorandum wrongly interpreted RFRA as providing a blanket exemption to statutory non-discrimination laws. This threatens civil rights and religious freedom protections. The organizations argue RFRA was not intended to create exemptions to non-discrimination laws or grant broad free exercise rights to receive government funds without complying with regulations. Withdrawing the memorandum would disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA and prevent further harm.
90 organizations requested that the Attorney General review and withdraw a 2007 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The memorandum wrongly interpreted RFRA as providing a blanket exemption to statutory non-discrimination laws. This threatens civil rights and religious freedom protections. The organizations argue RFRA was not intended to create exemptions to non-discrimination laws or grant broad free exercise rights to receive government funds without complying with regulations. Withdrawing the memorandum would disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA and prevent further harm.
JUNE 29, 2007 OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM RE: RFRA
June 10, 2014
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The 90 undersigned religious, education, civil rights, labor, LGBT, womens, and health organizations write today to request that you direct the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to review and withdraw its June 29, 2007 Memorandum (OLC Memo). 1 The OLC Memos interpretation that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 2 (RFRA) provides for a blanket override of statutory non- discrimination provisions is erroneous and threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections. Indeed, the Department of Justice recently issued an FAQ indicating that the OLC Memo will be used to undermine the plain language of the non-discrimination provision in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which Congress passed just last year. 3
The passage of VAWA included real deliberation over its non-discrimination provision. After significant debate, Congress passed a bill that barred organizations from engaging in employment discrimination with VAWA funds. But, because the OLC Memo remains administration policy, the explicit intent of Congress is being ignored, and the administration is granting exemptions from this non-discrimination provision to religious organizations that wish to use religion as a criterion when hiring employees using taxpayer dollars.
Some of us were leaders in the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which led the effort to persuade Congress to enact remedial legislation after the United States Supreme Court sharply curtailed Free Exercise Clause protections in Employment Div. v. Smith in 1990. 4 This effort culminated in 1993, when then-President William J. Clinton signed RFRA into law. In essence, RFRA was intended to provide protection of free exercise rights, restoring the pre-Smith standard of strict scrutiny to federal laws that substantially burden religion.
It was not intended to create blanket exemptions to non-discrimination laws.
Yet, the OLC Memo wrongly asserts that RFRA is reasonably construed to require that a federal agency categorically exempt a religious organization from an explicit federal non-discrimination provision tied to a grant program. Although the OLC Memos conclusion is focused on one Justice Department program, its overly-broad and erroneous interpretation of RFRA has been cited by other federal agencies and extended to other programs and grants, including, most recently, VAWA. The guidance in the OLC Memo is not justified under applicable legal standards and threatens to tilt policy toward an unwarranted end that damages civil rights and religious liberty.
1 Memorandum for the General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, from John P. Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (June 29, 2007). 2 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.(2000). 3 U.S. Department of Justice, Frequently Asked Questions: April 9, 2014: Nondiscrimination Grant Condition in the Violence Against Women Act of 2013, http://ojp.gov/about/ocr/pdfs/vawafaqs.pdf. 4 494 U.S. 872 (1990). 2
When President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13498, amending former President George W. Bushs Executive Order 13199 (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), he underlined the importance of ensuring that partnerships between government and faith-based institutions can be created and maintained effectively while preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments. The OLC Memo, however, stands as one of the most notable examples of the Bush Administrations attempt to impose a constitutionally erroneous and deeply harmful policyRFRA should not be interpreted or employed as a tool for broadly overriding statutory protections against religious discrimination or to create a broad free exercise right to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers.
The use of the OLC Memo to trump the recently adopted non-discrimination provision in VAWA demonstrates that its harm is more than speculative. We accordingly request that the administration publicly announce its intention to review the OLC Memo and, at the end of that review, withdraw the OLC Memo and expressly disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our views.
Respectfully,
9to5 African American Ministers In Action American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) American Association of University Women (AAUW) American Baptist Home Mission Societies American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO American Humanist Association American Jewish Committee (AJC) Americans for Religious Liberty Americans United for Separation of Church and State Anti-Defamation League Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) Bnai Brith International Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice Catholics for Choice Center for Inquiry Central Conference of American Rabbis Council for Secular Humanism Disciples Justice Action Network Equal Partners in Faith Family Equality Council Feminist Majority Friends Committee on National Legislation Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network GLBTQ Domestic Violence Project 3
Hadassah, The Womens Zionist Organization of America, Inc. Hindu American Foundation Human Rights Campaign Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc. Interfaith Alliance Japanese American Citizens League Jewish Council for Public Affairs Jewish Women International Keshet Lambda Legal Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law League of United Latin American Citizens Legal Momentum Marriage Equality USA Methodist Federation for Social Action Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers Muslim Advocates NAAMAT USA NAACP National Black Justice Coalition National Center for Lesbian Rights National Center for Transgender Equality National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) National Education Association National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Coalition Against Domestic Violence National Congress of Black Women National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health National Network to End Domestic Violence National Organization for Women National Partnership for Women & Families National Resource Center on Domestic Violence National Women's Health Network Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National People For the American Way Rainbow Push Coalition Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Secular Coalition for America Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) Sikh Council on Religion and Education (SCORE) Society for Humanistic Judaism South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) Southern Poverty Law Center Texas Faith Network Texas Freedom Network 4
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights The Rabbinical Assembly The Solomon Project The Trevor Project Transgender Law Center True Colors Fund UltraViolet Union for Reform Judaism Unitarian Universalist Association United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society V-Day Women of Reform Judaism Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) YWCA USA
Weil Ceramics and Glass, Inc. A New York Corporation v. Bernard Dash, an Individual and Jalyn Corp., a Corporation. Appeal of Weil Ceramics & Glass, Inc. Appeal of Bernard Dash and Jalyn Corp, 878 F.2d 659, 3rd Cir. (1989)