The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Its Rise, Fall, and Current Status (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Revised Jan. 21, 1999 |
| Report Number |
97-795 |
| Authors |
David M. Ackerman, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium June 25, 1998 (6 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
In City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores (1) the Supreme Court on
June 25, 1997, held the "Religious
Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) to be unconstitutional as applied to the states. Congress enacted
RFRA in 1993 in response to an earlier Supreme Court decision -- Employment Division,
Oregon
Department of Human Resources v. Smith (2) -- which had construed
the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment to prohibit only government action which intentionally burdens
the exercise of
religion. In RFRA Congress sought to broaden the legal protection afforded religious exercise by
prohibiting government action that has the effect of substantially burdening
religious practice as
well. But in Boerne the Court held that Congress lacks the power under Section 5 of
the Fourteenth
Amendment to apply RFRA to the states.
The Clinton Administration maintains that RFRA continues to be valid for the federal
government, and at least one federal appellate court has sustained that position . In
addition, in the
105th Congress bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate to re-apply RFRA's
standards
to the states using Congress' interstate commerce and spending clause powers ( S. 2148 ,
H.R. 4019 ). A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ordered a modified
version of H.R. 4019 reported to the full committee; but further consideration fell
victim to the Committee's impeachment inquiry.
This report briefly summarizes Smith , the legislative history of RFRA, the
decision in Boerne ,
RFRA's current legal status, and Congressional efforts to respond to Boerne .
1. Â 521 U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997).
2. Â 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
