Email: info@ulccaselaw.com
ULC Case Law
1629 K Street NW, Ste 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb) is also known under the shortened name RFRA. Signed into United States federal law in 1993, this act aims to prevent the creation and implementation of any law(s) that places any substantial burden on a person’s free exercize rights of practicing their religion. The RFRA reinstates the Sherbert Test which was created through two cases: Sherbert v Verner and Wisconsin v Yoder, both of which mandate that strict scrutiny be used when determining if the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution – which guarantees religious freedom – has been violated.
Congress stated through its findings that “a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion.” The RFRA states that that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” The law provides an exception if two conditions are both met. First, if the burden is necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.” 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 with core constitutional issues. The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.
Title 42, Chapter 21B, § 2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that–
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes
The purposes of this chapter are–
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
As an American worker, you may be aware that your employer cannot discriminate against you for religious reasons. If you request an exemption to certain workplace requirements due to religious reasons, your employer may be legally obliged to respect your faith. The word “may” is very important in this context since US employers can avoid Read More
Throughout time, countless religions have focused on sun worship. When you consider the qualities of our local star, this should not come as a major surprise. Known as “Sol” by astronomers, the sun is the brightest object in our sky. It is also an essential driver of life on Earth. Without it, humanity and all Read More
The United States is home to numerous religions. In order of popularity, the top five are Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, and Buddhism, the religiously unaffiliated outnumber all groups except for Christians. Although these top five religions dominate headlines when it comes to legal developments, they are not the oldest in the United States. Native Americans Read More
Today, immigration is one of the most controversial issues in the United States. Not only that, but it is proving to be a major flashpoint as we approach the next presidential elections. Many Americans have very strong views on this subject, and it is perhaps one of the most polarizing issues in the modern world. Read More
American doctors often find themselves at the forefront of religious lawsuits – and for obvious reasons. The freedom to refuse or provide treatment based on religious belief is one of those legal “grey areas” that has confounded the highest courts for decades. What is more important? The right of the patient to healthcare or the Read More