- Information
- AI Chat
Case Brief 29- Congress React to Smith
American Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties (POL 226)
Wake Forest University
Recommended for you
Preview text
POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park
Congress React to Smith
Facts:
Legally Relevant Facts
: In response to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), members of Congress introduces the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to give greater protection to religious liberty than afforded by the Supreme Court.
Procedurally Relevant Facts
: In 1993, Congress passed the bill.
House Action:
Mr. Brooks
: “H 1308, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, reflect the right to practice one’s faith without undue interference at the hands of the Government ... Under lonstanding constitutional principles, any governmental burden on the free exercise of religion was subject to the strictest test of constitutional scrutiny. In order to satisfy the free exercise clause, Government had to demonstrate that it had a compelling State interest in burdening the free exercise of religion and that it used the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
“In Smith, the Supreme Court abandoned the compelling State interest test in favor of a much weaker standard review.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision 3 years ago transformed a most hallowed liberty into a mundane concept with little more status than a fishing license – thus subjecting religious freedom to the whims of Government officials. That, indeed, has been the sorry legacy of the Court’s view of this matter.”
“I want to note the unprecedented coalition of religious denominations and civil rights groups who have united to stand up for the liberty given meaning by this bill. I am proud of how such marvelous diversity was united by a shared view of the place and role of religion in our society. I urge the approval of this legislation.”
Mr. Fish
: “the ability of men and women of faith to freely practice their religion as guaranteed by the first amendment was seriously threatened by the 1990 decision of the U. Supreme Court in Employment Service Division versus Smith.”
“Since Smith was decided in 1990, individuals seeking to practice their religion, unhampered by Government action, have largely been without recourse. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act will provide them with a means to challenge Government regulations which unnecessarily burden the free exercise of religion.”
Mr. Edwards
POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park
: “It is important to see the examples of why this bill is needed. A Federal investigator was fired because it was against his religion to do a certain investigation of a pacifist group.”
Mr. Hyde
: “A major issue of contention in the 102d Congress was whether the bill was a true restoration of the law as it existed prior to Smith or whether it sought to impose a more stringent statutory standard. Of course, the label restoration is inappropriate in this context since the Congress writes laws – it does not and cannot overrule the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution ... Throughout history Congress has engaged in constitutional interpretation, often reaching decision in opposition to court rulings.”
Case Brief 29- Congress React to Smith
Course: American Constitutional Law: Civil Liberties (POL 226)
University: Wake Forest University
