Analysis Historic ruling awaited on religious freedom law
By ROBERT F. DRINAN
Special to the National Catholic Reporter
In 1993 the San Antonio archdiocese decided that it should enlarge
St. Peter's Church in the city of Boerne to accommodate the gathering of up to
1,000 worshipers who come to the shrine every Sunday. But local officials
denied the necessary permissions, asserting that the church of St. Peter was
listed as a historic place and could not be altered.
Archbishop Patrick Flores sued the authorities, claiming that the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 gave church officials the right to a
hearing in which the government would be required to demonstrate that it had a
compelling reason to keep the church at its present size.
The judge denied the request of the archdiocese and in addition
declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional. The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed that judgment, stating that
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is indeed constitutional.
On Oct. 15 the United States Supreme Court announced that it will
review City of Boerne v. Flores. The stage is thus set for a
historic ruling on the dimensions of religious freedom in America. Oral
arguments will be early in the new year. A decision will be forthcoming no
later than June 1997.
And dozens like it
The background of the Flores case -- and dozens like it -- goes
back to a decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1990 in which the
Court rejected 5-4 a claim to the free exercise of religion made by two men in
Oregon who had lost their jobs because of their sacramental use, as American
Indians, of peyote. This decision, Smith v. Oregon, written by
Justice Antonin Scalia, seemingly reversed or at least restricted several
Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1963 that were generous in the exemption
they gave to claims based on the free exercise of religion. Scalia affirmed
that the Supreme Court could not grant an exemption to a law of general
applicability even if that law unintentionally or inadvertently impacted
adversely on religious freedom. Jurists and academics have been strong in their
denunciations of the ruling in the Smith decision.
Within a short time, Congress proposed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which would ease the Smith ruling in cases where the claimant
asserts a violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First
Amendment. The congressional test would reinstate the rule employed by the
Supreme Court from 1963 to 1990. That rule would require the government in any
case challenging a restriction under religious freedom to prove that a
compelling interest of the government justifies or requires such a rule and
that, if such a need is proven, the limitation on religious freedom is the
least restrictive.
An amazing coalition of some 60 religious and civil liberties
groups endorsed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Mainline Protestant
groups, the Christian Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union formed a
coalition unprecedented in U.S. history. The U.S. Catholic Conference endorsed
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act after being assured that it could not be
utilized to broaden the law on abortion.
The House of Representatives passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act unanimously on a voice vote. It was passed by the Senate by a
vote of 97 to 2. It was signed by President Clinton Nov. 16, 1993.
Plaintiffs have relied in whole or in part on the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act in some 200 cases -- half of which involve prisoners,
many of them Muslim, who sought to broaden what they claim to be their right to
religious freedom.
Oceans of literature
The number of victories under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act is limited. But in its three years of existence it has generated oceans of
literature by academics, litigants and civil libertarians. Some academics have
been unfriendly, even hostile, to the act because, they argue, it impermissibly
reverses a Supreme Court decision based on an interpretation of the
Constitution.
A few courts have declared it unconstitutional on this basis.
One of the most troublesome issues involved in litigation under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act relates to landlords who assert that they
cannot in conscience rent their housing units to couples who are living
together even though they are not married. This claim can collide with fair
housing statutes. The California Supreme Court 4-3 turned down the claim of a
woman, an Evangelical Christian, who refused to rent any of her four units to
heterosexual unmarried couples. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not
prevail.
The aspirations behind the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were
and are admirable. Americans take pride in the enlargement of religious freedom
given by the Supreme Court to Jehovah's Witnesses, Amish children, Seventh Day
Adventists and other minority religious groups.
The Supreme Court in the Smith decision in 1990 seemed to curtail
if not extinguish the constitutional principles that allowed exceptions to the
law in these cases. Congress reacted strongly. It made clear in the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act that the new law said nothing about Supreme Court
rulings related to the establishment clause. Consequently rulings related to
prayer in public schools and restrictions on aid to church-related schools are
untouched by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
As the practices of people of faith become more diverse in this
country, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on these practices that
were contained in laws of general applicability. The Supreme Court has done so
by interpreting generously the clear mandate of the First Amendment that the
government may not restrict the "free exercise" of religion. Even those who
criticize the court for its alleged judicial activism on issues like abortion,
obscenity and legislative reapportionment hardly ever claim that the court has
been too "activist" on issues related to religious freedom.
Generous interpretation
The architects of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will be
watching the Supreme Court intensely as it dissects their unique creation. It
will be easy to oversimplify the underlying issues in the Supreme Court case.
Many will be tempted to claim that if the Supreme Court declares the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act to be unconstitutional, it means the high Court is
hostile to religion. If the Supreme Court, on the other hand, vindicates the
constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it may do so in
such a splintered way that the full effectiveness of the act may be
impaired.
Lawyers for the city of Boerne are playing hard ball. They claim
that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a "vast, intrusive and rigid" law
that infringes on local government and is a "bold and unprecedented example of
federal social policy engineering." They add that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act "commandeers" the states to follow the mandate of the federal
government. The word "commandeer" is taken from two recent Supreme Court
decisions that struck down a federal law allegedly "commandeering" states to
comply with a federal mandate.
Religious freedom has always been a precious value in American
history. Courts have regularly sought to be tender and generous in yielding to
persons who feel their conscience would be violated if they complied with
certain laws. The court has a timely opportunity, in City of Boerne v.
Flores, to spell out and guarantee the continuation of that
practice.
Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan is a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center.
National Catholic Reporter, November 1,
1996
|