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 North Dakota Senate voted against a bill created to decrease discrimination against LGBTQ individuals occurs in employment and housing settings. North Dakota Senate Votes Against Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Bill 02/15/2019

    At the end of January, 2019, the North Dakota senate defeated legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The senator, who was the primary sponsor of the bill, also known as Senate Bill 2303, has said that the measure was created to decrease the rate at which discrimination against LGBTQ individuals occurs in Read More

  • The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal by a football coach who was let go by his school district because he prayed on the field at games. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Football Prayer Case 02/13/2019

    The United States Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal by a high school football coach who was dismissed by his school district because the man prayed on the field immediately following football games. This decision occurred despite commentary by four of the Supreme Court justices that they were troubled by the coach’s dismissal Read More

  • At the end of January 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed President Trump’s transgender military ban to go into effect. The Supreme Court Allows Transgender Military Ban 02/08/2019

    At the end of January 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States allowed President Trump’s transgender military ban to go into effect, which many LGBT advocates have hailed as a cruel body of regulations. In a 5-to-4 order, the Supreme Court declined to take a stance on the legality of the prohibition, but allowed Read More

  • The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently supported a ruling that prohibits a California district from continuing its prayer policy. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Prayer Issue 01/30/2019

    The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently supported a ruling by a three-judge panel that prohibits a California district from continuing its prayer policy. In arriving at this decision, the Ninth Circuit explained why the prayers in this prayer policy differed from legislative chaplain prayers which were upheld by the United States Supreme Read More

  • Courts in Arizona will hear arguments connected to a 2016 lawsuit that challenges a section of Phoenix’s nondiscrimination ordinance. Anti-LGBT Discrimination Laws To Be Reviewed in Arizona 01/17/2019

    In less than a month, courts in Arizona will hear arguments connected to a 2016 lawsuit that challenge a section of Phoenix’s nondiscrimination ordinance that applies to gender identity and sexual orientation. While it remains uncertain how this case will be resolved, it will have a substantial impact on LGBT laws in Arizona and might Read More

  • Read More