Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Revision history

1990'sguy at 16:22, December 10, 2018

2018-12-10T16:22:21Z

1990'sguy at 15:45, February 14, 2018

2018-02-14T15:45:09Z

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-06-27T06:58:09Z

clean up & uniformity

Aschlafly: RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the First Amendment."

2016-01-01T23:29:05Z

RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the First Amendment."

Aschlafly: expanded

2016-01-01T23:14:39Z

expanded

Aschlafly: expansion with 12 cases referenced and explained

2015-12-28T00:43:06Z

expansion with 12 cases referenced and explained

Aschlafly: the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued close to 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period.

2015-12-28T00:12:20Z

the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015. The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued close to 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period.

Aschlafly: added explanation of history of RFRA

2015-12-27T18:59:17Z

added explanation of history of RFRA

Aschlafly: build a new category: "RFRA"

2015-12-25T16:45:47Z

build a new category: "RFRA"

Aschlafly: New page: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a federal law requiring strict scrutiny to be used by courts in reviewing burdens on the free ...

2007-10-01T01:40:56Z

New page: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a federal law requiring strict scrutiny to be used by courts in reviewing burdens on the free ...

New page

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]]. RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion.

In ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states. [[Congress]] reacted by passing the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000.
[[category:First Amendment]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, December 10, 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act''' (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]]. RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion. RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994) ("RFRA is not a mere technical change from Smith. Rather, it restores a fundamentally different vision of human liberty.").</ref>	+	The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act''' (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]]. RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion. RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994) ("RFRA is not a mere technical change from Smith. Rather, it restores a fundamentally different vision of human liberty.").</ref> While the bill was originally passed with bipartisan support, Democrats, who have since grown significantly more left-wing, have become opposed to the bill.<ref>Russell, Keisha (December 10, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/25-years-of-the-religious-freedom-restoration-act 25 Years of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved December 10, 2018.</ref>

	In the landmark ''Hobby Lobby'' decision (2014), Justice [[Sam Alito]] explained the background for RFRA:		In the landmark ''Hobby Lobby'' decision (2014), Justice [[Sam Alito]] explained the background for RFRA:

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Following our decision in City of Boerne, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U.S.C. §2000cc et seq. That statute, enacted under Congress’s Commerce and Spending Clause powers, imposes the same general test as RFRA but on a more limited category of governmental actions. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 715-716, 125 S. Ct. 2113, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (2005). And, what is most relevant for present purposes, RLUIPA amended RFRA’s definition of the “exercise of religion.” See §2000bb-2(4) (importing RLUIPA definition). Before RLUIPA, RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb-2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”). In RLUIPA, in an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the First Amendment and defined the “exercise of religion” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc-5(7)(A). And Congress mandated that this concept “be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” §2000cc-3(g).}}
-''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2760-62 (2014).
+''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores]]'', 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2760-62 (2014).
 Notice that in ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states.  [[Congress]] reacted by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000.
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *''Holt v. Hobbs'', 135 S. Ct. 853
 *''Wheaton College v. Burwell'', 134 S. Ct. 2806
-*''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', 134 S. Ct. 2751
+*''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores]]'', 134 S. Ct. 2751
 *''Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius'', 133 S. Ct. 641 (denying Hobby Lobby's request for emergency relief of an injunction)
 *''Sossamon v. Texas'', 563 U.S. 277 (holding that sovereign immunity protected Texas against damages to a state prison inmate based on prison policies concerning religious worship)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]].  RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion.  RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994) ("RFRA is not a mere technical change from Smith. Rather, it restores a fundamentally different vision of human liberty.").</ref>
+The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act''' (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]].  RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion.  RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994) ("RFRA is not a mere technical change from Smith. Rather, it restores a fundamentally different vision of human liberty.").</ref>
 In the landmark ''Hobby Lobby'' decision (2014), Justice [[Sam Alito]] explained the background for RFRA:
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 == References ==
 <references/>
-[[category:First Amendment]]
+[[Category:First Amendment]]
-[[category:RFRA]]
+[[Category:RFRA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, January 1, 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]]. RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion.	+	The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, is a [[federal]] law requiring [[strict scrutiny]] to be used by [[court]]s in reviewing burdens on the free exercise of religion under the [[First Amendment]]. RFRA was passed in 1993 in response to the ruling by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'' (1990), which made it harder for people to challenge restrictions on their exercise of religion. RFRA has been described by legal commentators as "the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the [[First Amendment]]."<ref>Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994) ("RFRA is not a mere technical change from Smith. Rather, it restores a fundamentally different vision of human liberty.").</ref>

	In the landmark ''Hobby Lobby'' decision (2014), Justice [[Sam Alito]] explained the background for RFRA:		In the landmark ''Hobby Lobby'' decision (2014), Justice [[Sam Alito]] explained the background for RFRA:

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Notice that in ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states.  [[Congress]] reacted by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000.
-Overall, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015, with the most recent rank first:
+Overall, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a dozen decisions mentioning RFRA between 1994 and the end of 2015, with the most recent ranking first:
 *''Holt v. Hobbs'', 135 S. Ct. 853
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 *''Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n'', 513 U.S. 979 (1994) (in a denial of [[certiorari]], Justice Thomas mentioned RFRA in his solitary dissent "to resolve whether, under RFRA, an interest in preventing discrimination based on marital status is sufficiently 'compelling' that respondent may substantially burden petitioner's exercise of religion")
-The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued close to 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period.
+The U.S. Court of Appeals, meanwhile, has issued nearly 2000 decisions mentioning RFRA during this same two-decade period.
 == References ==
 <references/>
 [[category:First Amendment]]
 [[category:RFRA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, December 25, 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	In ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states. [[Congress]] reacted by passing the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000.		In ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated the RFRA to the extent it applied against the states. [[Congress]] reacted by passing the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000.
	[[category:First Amendment]]		[[category:First Amendment]]
		+	[[category:RFRA]]