Universal Life Church Case Law
Phone: (614) 715-9048 Fax: (614) 715-9049
Email: info@ulccaselaw.com
ULC Case Law
1629 K Street NW, Ste 300
Washington, D.C. 20006

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

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.

 

Recent Posts

  • The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave his thoughts on the constitutionality of religion during a 2016 speech, and much debate ensued. A Supreme Opinion: Constitutionality of Non-Religion 12/14/2018

    What happened when one of the most influential judicial individuals in the country started discussing his position on a topic that was not currently in front of his court? Aside from making several reporters very happy to have a good headline, much speculation began to circulate about the state of the law surrounding that topic. Read More

  • The Department of Justice announced plans to ask the US Supreme Court to review President Trump’s ban on military service for transgender individuals. Department of Justice to Ask Supreme Court to Consider Military Transgender Ban 12/11/2018

    In a recent court filing, the Department of Justice announced plans to ask the United States Supreme Court to review President Trump’s ban on military service for transgender individuals. The Department of Justice announced that it plans to file a request before the Supreme Court by November 23, which means that the justices would be Read More

  • Fliers were posted at the University of California Los Angeles promoting a “white student group" that is not affiliated with the college. Fliers Prohibited for White Student Group 12/07/2018

    After the 2016 election of Donald Trump, a handful of fliers were posted at the University of California Los Angeles promoting a “white student group,” which was a group that was not affiliated with the college. The fliers, several of which were found taped to buildings, listed a website, a Twitter account, and an e-mail Read More

  • A complaint was recently filed against Muskegon Community College because it included a religious prayer at its 2018 graduation ceremony. Complaint Alleges Unconstitutional Prayer at College Graduation 12/05/2018

    A complaint was recently filed against Muskegon Community College because it included a religious prayer at its 2018 graduation ceremony. The complaint was initiated by the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists in response to a prayer that was delivered during the 2018 graduation ceremony by a master of ceremonies. The Content of the Speech Read More

  • To have a complete understanding of religious freedom in the U.S. Constitution, it is important to know how the framers viewed religion. Religious Freedom in the Constitution: Original vs. Amended 11/30/2018

    In modern day constitutional discussion, there is typically no argument about whether the Constitution protects individuals’ freedom to engage in the practice of religion regardless of which religion it is.  However, the discussion typically focuses on the First Amendment to the Constitution and not the original Articles.  Did the framers discuss religion, and if so, Read More

  • Read More