The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Its Rise, Fall, and Current Status

Publication Date: June 1998

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Culture and religion

Type:

Abstract:

In City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores1 the Supreme Court on June 25, 1997, held the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) to be unconstitutional as applied to the states. RFRA had been adopted in 19932 in response to an earlier Supreme Court decision — Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith3 — which had construed the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to prohibit only government action which intentionally burdens the exercise of religion. Congress reacted by enacting RFRA, which prohibits government action that has the effect of substantially burdening religious practice as well. But in Boerne the Court held that Congress lacks the power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply RFRA to the states.

The Clinton Administration maintains that RFRA continues to be valid for the federal government; and on April 13, 1998, a federal appellate court sustained that position in Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church.4 In addition, members in both the House and the Senate on June 9, 1998, introduced legislation entitled the "Religious Liberty Protection Act" (RLPA) to re-apply RFRA's standards to the states under Congress' interstate commerce and spending clause powers (S. 2148, H.R. 4019).

This report briefly summarizes Smith, the legislative history of RFRA, the Court’s decision in Boerne, and RFRA’s current legal status, and notes the introduction of the RLPA.