wfn.org | Supreme Court Rejects Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[PCUSA.NEWS@pcusa.org]

9-July-1997 
97262 
 
    Supreme Court Rejects Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act 
 
    by Adelle M. Banks 
    Religion News Service 
 
WASHINGTON--To the dismay of many of the country's religious leaders (see 
following story for reaction by the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk 
of the Presbyterian Church), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) June 25, saying Congress 
unconstitutionally usurped power belonging to federal courts and the states 
when it passed the measure. 
 
    The four-year-old law -- supported by a broad swath of religious groups 
-- forced the government to show a compelling interest before it could 
interfere with religious practices.  It was passed in reaction to a 1990 
Supreme Court decision that permitted government officials to overlook the 
compelling interest criteria. 
 
    But by a vote of 6-3, the high court ruled its decision takes priority. 
"It is this court's precedent ... which must control," wrote Justice 
Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority. 
 
    Others ruling in favor of the decision were Chief Justice William H. 
Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas 
and John Paul Stevens.  Dissenting were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, 
Stephen G. Breyer and David H. Souter. 
 
    Members of the coalition that supported RFRA voiced collective sadness 
and disappointment.  The decision, they said, removes legal protection for 
religious groups whose practices conflict with state and local regulations. 
 
    "Without RFRA, the religious liberty of every American is in peril," 
said J. Brent Walker, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on 
Public Affairs.  "Basically, what the court has done is to sacrifice 
religious freedom on the altar of states' rights."  Walker and others said 
there was so much support for RFRA across the religious spectrum that they 
could not think of a single religious opponent. 
 
    Groups that weighed in after the court's ruling included Reform and 
Orthodox Jews, the United Church of Christ, Southern Baptists, the National 
Council of Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Church of 
Scientology, the liberal Americans United for Separation of Church and 
State and the conservative Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the 
Christian Legal Society. 
 
    "We lost about as bad as we can lose," said Forest Montgomery, general 
counsel of the National Association of Evangelicals. 
 
    The decision came in a case stemmed from the desire of officials at St. 
Peter the Apostle Roman Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, to rebuild their 
74-year-old sanctuary to accommodate a growing congregation.  The city 
prevented the expansion because the church is in a historical district and 
renovations would violate local preservation laws. 
 
    The church sued the city in 1994, arguing that the preservation code 
violated RFRA and an appellate court agreed.  But the city appealed the 
case to the Supreme Court. 
 
    The Rev. Tony Cummins, pastor of the church, said he was disappointed 
by the decision, but will continue to pursue his church's case using 
options other than RFRA.  "It is expensive to take on a government and to 
say that they are creating a burden," he said.  "RFRA sort of leveled the 
playing field. ... Now the balance has been upset in favor of the 
government." 
 
    But Boerne mayor Patrick Heath said the decision means all institutions 
in a community must cooperate with local ordinances and "one does not 
dominate the other."  Heath, who has been mayor of the city northwest of 
San Antonio for 10 years, said the ruling has implications for a variety of 
governmental agencies.  "It brings some relief to local governments all 
across the country in terms of their zoning powers and their ability to 
regulate building," he said. 
 
    Historic preservationists, prison officials and atheists were among the 
others who cheered the decision. 
 
    Paul Edmondson, general counsel of the Washington-based National Trust 
for Historic Preservation, whose organization filed a "friend-of-the-court" 
brief supporting Boerne, said religious structures should not receive a 
"wholesale exemption" from laws regarding landmarks. 
 
    Jim Turpin, legislative liaison for the American Correctional 
Association, said prisons were hit with many lawsuits from religious groups 
that formed within their walls and were trying to circumvent prison rules. 
"Although it was well intentioned, RFRA's results have had a very negative 
impact on the corrections system, leading to voluminous litigation," he 
said. 
 
    He cited a "most egregious" example at the District of Columbia's 
correctional facilities in Lorton, Va., where "a group claimed RFRA in 
order to get visitation privileges and that was used as a front for drugs 
and prostitution into the institution." 
 
    Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, applauded the court for 
dispelling the notion of "special rights" for religious groups: "The RFRA 
established one set of laws for private individuals and businesses and 
another set which was applied to churches and other religious groups on a 
selective, discriminatory basis." 
 
    Religious groups and other RFRA supporters, for their part, began 
considering what recourse they had to the high court's decision.  Some hope 
the court will take the dissenting advice of O'Connor and Breyer, who 
suggested the court reconsider its 1990 "Oregon v. Smith" decision.  That 
ruling said state antidrug rules could stop American Indians from using 
peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, as part of a religious ceremony. 
 
    "If `Smith' gets fixed, then you don't need RFRA," said Walker of the 
Baptist Joint Committee.  Others expect to encourage legislation similar to 
RFRA at the state levels. 
 
    And there may also be support for a constitutional amendment -- one 
that might differ from the already proposed Religious Freedom Amendment -- 
which deals more with the establishment clause of the First Amendment 
rather than the free-exercise portion, which RFRA addressed. 
 
    Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., announced that the House Judiciary 
Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a July 14 hearing to 
consider future action.  "The court's decision has left men and women of 
faith without meaningful recourse against laws that prevent them from 
exercising their religion," he said. 
 
    Marc Stern, legal director of the American Jewish Congress, said the 
RFRA decision may be more about the balance of powers between the 
government and the states, but it also reflects a societal cynicism about 
organized religion. 
 
    "I don't think ... institutionalized religion occupies for many 
Americans quite the same sacrosanct status as it once did," said Stern. 
"The fact is that the public officials in Boerne felt comfortable spending 
a lot of tax money taking a church to court and stopping a church's ability 
to convert a church into a more useful structure." 

------------
For more information contact Presbyterian News Service
  phone 502-569-5504             fax 502-569-8073  
  E-mail PCUSA.NEWS@pcusa.org   Web page: http://www.pcusa.org 
  mailed from World Faith News <wfn-news@wfn.org>  

--