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 conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a Texas judge who begins his proceedings with courtroom prayers. Case About Judge’s Courtroom Prayers Leads to Fifth Circuit Split 11/30/2022

    In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a Texas judge who begins his court sessions with courtroom prayers. The court in this case, Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Mack, held that the judge did not violate the Constitution by performing these ceremonies. The appellate panel noted that the courtroom Read More

  • Five New Jersey towns restricted the availability of marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples and excluded nonbinary applicants. Five New Jersey Towns Accused of Violating Same-Sex Marriage Laws 11/25/2022

    Five New Jersey towns were recently issued notices of violation by the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR). These towns had details on their websites that restricted the availability of marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples and excluded applicants for marriage with nonbinary gender identities. Same-Sex Marriage in New Jersey Same-sex couples in New Jersey Read More

  • California recently banned state-funded travel to five states that have recently enacted anti-LGBTQ legislation. California Prohibits State-Funded Travel to Five States That Recently Enacted Anti-LGBTQ+ Legislation 11/22/2022

    In response to House Bill 1084, California’s government has prohibited all state-funded travel to Georgia. 1084, which was recently passed in Georgia, bans transgender women from playing on athletic teams that match the gender with which they identify. In addition to prohibiting travel to Georgia, California has similarly prohibited state-funded travel to several other states, including Read More

  • The Michigan state senate voted to condemn an LGBTQ training session for Michigan educators that it claimed was threatening parental rights. Michigan Legislature Passes Resolution Against LGBTQ Training Session 11/18/2022

    A dispute regarding an LGBTQ training session in which Michigan teachers were taught how to help LGBTQ students has led to requests that Michigan’s superintendent resign. Training from Michigan’s Department of Education instructed teachers how to discuss a student’s suicidal thoughts with parents without potentially outing the student, and having the student guide that process. Republicans Read More

  • The U.S. Senate delayed a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act to protect same-sex marriage until after the midterm elections. Senators Postpone Vote on Respect for Marriage Act 11/15/2022

    A bipartisan group of Senators voted to delay a bill that would guard the right to both interracial and same-sex marriage. Instead of voting on the measure, Chuck Schumer, who is the leader of the Senate majority, postponed a vote on the legislation until after the midterm elections. It was recently announced that the senate Read More

  • Read More