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 Supreme Court recently found New York's COVID-19 restrictions to be an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Religious Challenge Against New York COVID-19 Restrictions 12/18/2020

    The United States Supreme Court recently overruled COVID-19 restrictions established by New York legislators that were designed to combat the coronavirus, finding the restrictions to be unconstitutional. The 5-to-4 vote was the first to address COVID-19 restrictions after the loss of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this fall and the installment of the new Read More

  • The Civil Rights Act encompasses discrimination against LGBTQ workers, the Supreme Court has held. Supreme Court Extends Title VII Protection to LGBTQ Workers 12/04/2020

    In a recent landmark decision earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ workers from on-the-job discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The decision was the result of a 6-3 majority that saw Justices Gorsuch and Roberts, who are traditionally viewed Read More

  • The Supreme Court recently found New York's COVID-19 restrictions to be an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. Supreme Court Rejects Church’s Shutdown Challenge 11/20/2020

    The Supreme Court of the United States recently turned down a request from a California church to block enforcement of state restrictions concerning attendance at religious services. In a 5-4 vote, Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberals on the court to gain a majority to deny the church’s shutdown challenge. Meanwhile, Justices Thomas, Alito, Read More

  • The Supreme Court recently found New York's COVID-19 restrictions to be an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. Federal Judge Blocks North Carolina’s Religious Service Restrictions 06/10/2020

    A federal judge recently ruled that North Carolina religious leaders should be able to open their doors to their congregations, overruling religious service restrictions instituted by the state’s Governor to contain further spread of the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. North Carolina’s Governor Roy Cooper has since stated that he does not plan to appeal the Read More

  • Trump's new regulations were directed primarily toward contraceptive coverage, but they also have implications for LGBTQ individuals in the country. Supreme Court Ruling on Contraceptive Coverage Could Influence LGBTQ Employment Issues 06/04/2020

    Last month, the United States Supreme Court heard several important cases regarding contraceptive coverage guaranteed under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. In 2017, the Trump Administration argued for the right to expand a previous exemption to the contraceptive mandate from entities with a religious objection, such as churches, to any entity with a moral objection. Read More

  • Read More