Tag Archives: Topic: RFRA

Womenenews via Reuters: On May 22, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a nonprofit center based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is hoping that the 7th Court of Appeals in Chicago will issue an injunction so its client, Grote Industries, won’t be subjected to fines for not providing the contraceptive coverage required by law since Jan. 1. (newly added to Reuters)

Womensenews.org: “Nonprofit centers like ours that depend on donations are representing these small businesses pro bono because in addition to the fines, the cost of lawyers, travel and other expenses in pursuing these cases would wipe out the assets that took generations for the owners of these small businesses to accumulate,” said Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, in a phone interview. His group has 44 in-house attorneys and more than 2,400 volunteer attorneys.

Religion Clause Blog: In Thompson v. Commissioner, (USTC, March 4, 2013), the U.S. Tax Court faced the question of the extent to which a taxpayer entering an installment agreement for the payment of back taxes should be allowed to continue to tithe to the Mormon Church.

Ctr. for Law and Religion at St. John’s U.: Whatever policy concerns one might have, it seems to me that the Administration’s categorical exclusion of for-profits in its current proposed rule, and its reliance on certain definitions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, just is not going to fly in the RFRA context.

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: The lead lawyer on the case, Matt Bowman from the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: Americans have the God-given freedom to live and do business according to their faith. Forcing employers to surrender their faith in order to earn a living is unprecedented, unnecessary, and unconstitutional. Honoring God is important every day, in all areas of life, including in our work. Freedom is not the government’s to give and take away when it pleases.

Ed Whelan at National Review: Last Friday, in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, federal district judge Mitchell S. Goldberg joined the minority of courts that have denied injunctive relief to the owners of for-profit businesses that have religious objections to complying with the HHS mandate.

Religion Clause Blog: In Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Dec. 31, 2012), a Missouri federal magistrate judge issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage mandate to require a for-profit dairy farming and cheese making business to cover abortifacient devices ( Plan B, Ella and copper IUDs) and related counseling.

Religion Clause Blog: In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii v. Holder, (D HI, Dec.31, 2012), an Hawaii federal district court, in a case on remand from the 9th Circuit (see prior posting), permitted a church’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim to proceed to challenge enforcement of the federal drug laws.

Edward Whelan, The HHS Contraception Mandate vs. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 87 Notre Dame Law Review 2179-2190 (2012). Online at: http://www.nd.edu/~ndlrev/archive_public/87ndlr5/whelan.pdf

There are thus four questions involved in determining whether the HHS mandate violates RFRA: (1) Does a person engage in an “exercise of religion” when he, for religious reasons, refuses to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients?; (2) Does the HHS mandate “substantially burden” such exercise of religion?; (3) Does application of the burden to the person further a “compelling governmental interest”?; (4) Is application of the burden to the person the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest?

Breitbart: Notice that the administration goes beyond its argument that businesses have no religious freedom rights. The DOJ says that even if a business did have rights to religious freedom, the HHS mandate is not really a “substantial” ethical dilemma, and, in a sense, the government can decide what is a “substantial burden” and what is not.

Religion Clause Blog: In Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, (9th Circuit, Oct. 5, 2012), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected RFRA and 14th Amendment challenges to immigration rules that treat religious workers applying to adjust their immigration status to become permanent residents differently from those in various other employment-based preference categories.

Religion Clause Blog: As previously reported, in June the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated 19 criminal contempt citations issued by a Minnesota federal district court against a Somali Muslim defendant who, for religious reasons, refused to stand when the court convened and recessed.

Religion Clause Blog: In United States v. Ali, (8th Cir., June 4, 2012), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated 19 criminal contempt citations issued by a Minnesota federal district court against a Muslim defendant who, for religious reasons, refused to stand when the court convened and recessed.

Religion Clause Blog: Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, (9th Cir., April 9, 2012), is a suit under the 1st Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a church whose sacramental earth-based healing ceremonies involve the consumption of marijuana.

Sara Lunsford Kohen. 2011. “Religious Freedom in Private Lawsuits: Untangling When RFRA Applies to Suits Involving Only Private Parties” ExpressO Available at: http://works.bepress.com/sara_kohen/3

Religious Freedom in Private Lawsuits: Untangling When RFRA Applies to Suits Involving Only Private Parties, for publication discusses when courts should apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) in cases in which the federal government is not a party. Congress passed RFRA in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

LifeNews.com: he American Center for Law and Justice today filed papers with a federal appeals court to reinstate its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, saying its position is “grounded in the Constitution” along with Supreme Court precedent.

SCOTUS Blog’s updated list of Petitions to Watch is here.

Note, Can Taxpayers Stand Discrimination?: Lack Of Standing And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Permits The Executive Branch To Fund Discrimination Within Religious Organizations, 49 J. Cath. Legal Stud. 195 (2010)

Scott Ott writing at Pajamas Media: “Without regard for threat potential, airline passengers of all ages can now be forced to make the choice between baring their nakedness before a federal agent, or getting a full-body fingertip groping by another federal agent. The Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) scanners — AKA strip-search machines — now stand watch in more than 65 airports nationwide, with their numbers set to grow by more than 40 percent at year’s end, thanks to your federal stimulus dollars.”

What Burdens Religion? Musings on Two Recent Cases Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Thomas F. King, 13 Great Plains Nat. Resources J. 1 (2010)

“In Navajo Nation, at issue was the proposed use of treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow at the Arizona Snowbowl, a ski facility on the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. As the district court acknowledged, to traditional Navajo, the Peaks are the ‘Mother of the Navajo people,’ and comprise one of “the holiest of Navajo shrines.” The Hopi, Havasupai, Yavapai, Hualapai, and White Mountain Apache Tribes have different beliefs about the Peaks, but each regards them in its own way as holy ground. The tribes and other plaintiffs sought to block the snowmaking, charging that it would pollute the sanctity of the Peaks and hence burden their practices of religion in violation of RFRA. The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims and dismissed the case. On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision, finding for the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit then reconsidered the case en banc, and, over the thoughtful dissent of Judge William Fletcher, found that the snowmaking would not burden the tribes’ religious practices. On August 8, 2008 the court dismissed the case.

Comanche Nation has not proceeded nearly as far through the courts as has Navajo Nation. On September 23, 2008, the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction halting the U.S. Army’s construction of a training support center at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. The construction site of the proposed support center is about 1600 feet south of Medicine Bluffs, a stone-faced prominence that is and long has been a place of spiritual practice in traditional Comanche religion. The Comanche Nation sought to halt the construction because the new facility would interfere with views of and from the Bluffs, whose unsullied natural character is important to Comanche religious experience. The ultimate disposition of the case remains to be determined, but the District Court’s interpretation of RFRA is interesting for its sharp contrast with that of the Ninth Circuit in Navajo Nation.”

Marci Hamilton writes at Findlaw: “Child safety has routinely been undermined by religious organizations arguing for religious liberty “guarantees” in cases involving medical neglect by faith-healing parents; the regulation of religious schools, camps and social-service providers; and child sex abuse by clergy. I discussed these issues in some detail in my 2007 book God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, so Professor Dwyer’s remarks did not surprise me, but they apparently did surprise many in the law-and-religion field — testifying, I suppose, to the larger problem of the overspecialization of law professors. On the RFRA issue, as I will explain, it is the family-law professors who are correct: RFRAs were, and continue to be, a dangerous legal innovation.”

Allan D. Hertzke has an article at Weekly Standard that carries this sub-caption: “How a 1990 decision has come back to haunt us, and how its damage might be undone”

State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts as a Solution to the Free Exercise Problem of Religiously Based Refusals to Administer Health Care
Kelleen Patricia Forlizzi, 44 New Eng. L. Rev. 387 (2010)

“This Note advocates for the adoption of individual state religious freedom restoration acts (RFRAs) to reinstate the strict scrutiny standard for all laws restricting religious activity. State RFRAs represent a viable alternative to the current methodology for analyzing free exercise claims in the context of religiously based refusals to administer health care. The enactment of these statutes will afford medical professionals the chance to keep their jobs while remaining true to their religious beliefs, as well as balance the scales between the free exercise of religion and the equal protection rights of patients.”

Yellow Snow on Sacred Sites: A Failed Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Joshua A. Edwards, 34 Am. Indian L. Rev. 151 (2010)

“The holy lands that are dear to these tribes are owned by the federal government, which has approved a proposal to expand a ski resort known as the Snowbowl. The proposal is focused on pumping 1.5 million gallons of sewage effluent per day from the nearby city of Flagstaff, Arizona to the Peaks in order to manufacture artificial snow for the Snowbowl. The purpose of the plan is to improve the economic viability of the ski resort, which has suffered diminished profits from decreased annual snowfall. Attempting to halt the plan, the tribes initiated suit against the U.S. Forest Service on a variety of claims. This note will focus on their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). … The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of RFRA in Navajo Nation is too narrow to fulfill Congress’s intent of expanding First Amendment protection. The court interpreted ‘substantial burden’ to fit only the facts of previous Supreme Court cases in lieu of independently determining whether the use of sewage effluent on the Snowbowl places a substantial burden on the tribes’ exercise of religion. This has the effect of completely undermining the congressional intent of RFRA, which was to expand the protection proffered to religious expression.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In A.A. v. Needville Independent School District, (5th Cir., July 9, 2010), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the right of a Native American kindergartner to wear his hair in two long braids.”

Law.com: “[T]wo separate reports issued Wednesday suggest that Kagan may part company with Stevens in cases involving religious liberty. … In one report, scholar Melissa Rogers suggests Kagan could ‘move the Court closer to reinvigorating the Free Exercise Clause and thus closer to providing additional protection for the peaceful practice of all faiths.’ … The other report issued Wednesday treats Kagan’s views on the issue with alarm. Her memo on the California case ‘raises many questions,’ according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

This Land is My Land: The Tension Between Federal Use of Public Lands and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Lieutenant Colonel James E. Key, 65 A.F. L. Rev. 51 (2010)

“This article posits that despite its sweeping language, Congress never intended for RFRA to control government land use decisions with respect to public lands. Two legislative options to remove RFRA from these types of decisions are to either (1) amend RFRA to explicitly exclude public land use or (2) repeal RFRA in its entirety. Without legislative action, government agencies must prepare to meet RFRA challenges by relying on existing legal precedent.”

“The Louisiana legislature has passed and sent to Gov. Bobby Jindal for his signature SB 606, the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.”

IFA Web News: “The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a nonprofit group that focuses on constitutional law, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, alleging that the health reform law passed in March also violates the U.S. Constitution. . . . The suit asks the court to declare the individual mandate provision unconstitutional, rule that the rights of three of the plaintiffs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated and issue a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the individual mandate provision.”

Religion Clause: “In United States v. Quaintance, (10th Cir., May 19, 2010), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Arizona federal district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictments of Danuel and Mary Quaintance for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.”

Confusion and Coercion in Church Property Litigation
Brian Schmalzbach, 96 Va. L. Rev. 443 (2010)

“If, after a relatively calm decade in the 1990s, the Protestant Episcopal Church thought its role on the church property front of the American Kulturkampf was over, it was in for a rude awakening. The 2003 ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual bishop, ignited a firestorm of dissent and ultimately provoked dozens of Episcopal parishes and even whole dioceses to leave one of the oldest Protestant denominations in America. The conflict reached a head in 2006, when eleven Virginia parishes withdrew from the Episcopal Church and affiliated with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. The massive, multi-million dollar litigation over property worth tens of millions of dollars that followed concerned one simple question: Is the local parish or the supercongregational denomination entitled to retain control of church property? Answering this question has implicated a host of exceedingly complex constitutional problems.”

Modifying the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to Create a Constitutional Statutory Protection for Religious Landowners
Sara Witt, 59 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 767 (2009)

“Part I will provide background regarding Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, RLUIPA’s legislative history, and Congress’s enforcement power, one basis Congress claimed as giving it authority to enact RLUIPA and its unconstitutional predecessor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Part II will argue that enactment of RLUIPA was outside Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power. Specifically, it will consider whether RLUIPA codifies Supreme Court precedent and whether the Act is ‘congruent and proportional’ to the harm it seeks to remedy. Part II will ultimately conclude that neither of these tests is met. Part III will argue that some statutory protection is necessary for those seeking to use land for religious purposes and will suggest how RLUIPA may be modified so as to provide this protection while remaining within the confines of the enforcement power.”

WorldNetDaily: “A case brought by a church ministry in Chicago against city officials after they applied zoning and administrative rules to prevent the group from offering housing to victims of Hurricane Katrina has been revived by judges at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals . . . The city of Chicago sued World Outreach Conference Center to shut its outreach ministry and community center, even though the building had operated as a community center since 1926, according to officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped fund the work on behalf of the church.”

“We have consolidated for decision two cases presenting the recurring issue of the rights of religious organizations to avoid having to comply with local land-use regulations.”

Multichannel.com: “Religious broadcasters have asked the Federal Communications Commission not to reallocate any broadcast spectrum for wireless, saying it will disproportionately impact Christian TV broadcasters . . . NRB also maintained that if spectrum reclamation were to significantly impact religious broadcasters, it could well violate the Religoius Freedom Restoration Act . . . ”

Religion Clause Blog: “In United States v. Islamic American Relief Agency, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541 (WD MO, Nov. 18, 2009), a Missouri federal district court rejected defendants’ argument that their indictment for illegally transferring funds to Iraq violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In Hankins v. New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, (2d Cir., Oct. 13, 2009), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the constitutionally-based ‘ministerial exception’ doctrine requires dismissal of a pastor’s age discrimination complaint.”

Is O Centro a Sign of Hope for RFRM Claimants
Matthew Nicholson, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1281 (2009)

“This Note examines RFRA cases decided by the courts of appeals after O Centro, and it identifies four such interpretive moves. The first two moves avoid the need to confront O Centro‘s interpretation of the compelling interest test altogether, and the last two moves weaken the test itself. If courts remain uncomfortable with granting religious exemptions, they may increasingly employ these four moves to reduce O Centro’s impact.”

Religion Clause Blog: “In Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82459 (D ID, Sept. 10, 2009) . . . also held that both in the homeless shelter and in the Rescue Mission’s second component– a residential recovery program for individuals with drug or alcohol dependency– the Religious Freedom Restoration Act bars application of the Fair Housing Act to prohibit the Rescue Mission’s religious activities or religious favoritism of certain participants.”

Associated Press: “The Tennessee Municipal League says it may discuss repealing or modifying a new law it believes sets the stage for legal challenges to multiple state statutes and local ordinances that interfere with professed religious beliefs.”

Making Snow in the Desert: Defining a Substantial Burden under RFRA
Jonathan Knapp, 36 Ecology L.Q. 259 (2009)

“Despite RFRA’s lofty goal of repairing the damage to religious liberty caused by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, as the Act is purposely ambiguous concerning the meaning to be supplied to all of its critical terms, such as what types of governmental action “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion, Congress simply returned a number of intractable issues to the courts. This lack of formal guidance in RFRA has resulted in pervasive confusion over how the term “substantial burden” should be defined and analyzed, conflict between appellate courts, and ultimately, profound limitation of the statute’s success.”

Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal: “This article will first address the specifics of the Navajo Nation decision in Part II before turning to the question in Part III of the extent to which the Ninth Circuit’s ruling closes the door to any future RFRA land use claims against the federal government.”

North Carolina Central Law Review: “Courts have not consistently applied religious exemptions among differing faiths, which leads an observer to question the distinction between one religion’s permissible accommodations over another’s.”

American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review: “This Comment asserts that section 548(a)(2) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that the UFTA violates current Free Exercise clause analysis because neither statute passes strict scrutiny. Specifically, this Comment will discuss the history of Free Exercise clause analysis, the history of fraudulent conveyance law, and finally, the unconstitutionality of current fraudulent conveyance law with regard to the Free Exercise clause.”

“The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of a ministry to former prison inmates Friday, determining that zoning regulations passed by the city of Sinton to oust the ministry from town violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Marci A. Hamilton writes at Findlaw: “TRFRA is a creature of the Texas legislature. Like Congress’s RFRA, Texas’s, too, has hardly led to a brighter day of religious liberty. Instead, it has authorized judicial intervention in public policy decisions that serve religious triumphalism at the cost of subjugating crucial safety interests – and these are the interests of our most honorable, the firefighters who protect us and our homes, and our most vulnerable, our children.”

Religion Clause Blog: “Today in Barr v. City of Sinton, (TX Sup. Ct., June 19, 2009), the Texas Supreme Court held that the strict scrutiny standard in the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to zoning ordinances.”

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “The Gallup (NM) Independent reported yesterday that the Navajo Nation Council has approved its attorneys meeting with the Obama administration to try to work out a settlement in Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service . . . Some delegates to the Navajo Council say the organization may have to appeal to international bodies under principles of international law to obtain relief. ”

Eugene Volokh reports at the Volokh Conspiracy: “A federal district court has just upheld another religious exemption claim for the use of hoasca.”

The ruling in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukaseyn, No. 08-3095 PA (D. Ore. March 18, 2009) begins . . .

AP: A member of the Northern Arapaho tribe who killed a bald eagle for use in a Native American ceremony could face up to a year in jail after the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear his appeal. The …

Vikram David Amar and Alan Brownstein have posted this Findlaw commentary that begins: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks whether to take up an important and interesting case from the U.S Court of Appeals for the …

SunJournal.com reports: Arguing that he uses marijuana for religious reasons, a 48-year-old Mexican man has filed suit against the state and two law enforcement agencies, charging violation of his constitutional rights . . . Hutchinson charges the agencies with violating …

Using the dispute between the native tribes of northern Arizona and the federal government over the development of the Peaks, this article will demonstrate how the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, as well as the subsequent activities of courts and legislative bodies, has disrupted well-settled law and has created a quagmire of confusion related to religious freedom. The Supreme Court will likely have an opportunity to fix this legal disaster as the current Peaks lawsuit progresses through the court system to an inevitable writ of certiorari. As it faces this particular suit, the Court can and should overrule Smith, declare RFRA unconstitutional, and restore the proper test for the analysis of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

Using the dispute between the native tribes of northern Arizona and the federal government over the development of the Peaks, this article will demonstrate how the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, as well as the subsequent activities of courts and legislative bodies, has disrupted well-settled law and has created a quagmire of confusion related to religious freedom.

The AP: American Indian tribes are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision that allows for snowmaking on an Arizona peak the tribes consider sacred . . . The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in …

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “Yesterday the Department of Labor issued a release explaining how recipients of federal grants under the Workforce Reinvestment Act (WRA) can obtain an exemption from statutory provisions barring hiring by grantees on the basis of …

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “In Kammerling v. Lappin, (DC Cir., Dec. 30, 2008), rejected a federal prisoner’s free exercise challenges the government’s taking of a required DNA sample from him pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act. Russell …

APB reports:  The Supreme Court has instructed a lower court to review its decision that terrorism detainees lack religious rights under United States law. The justices issued an order Dec. 15 reversing the January decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court …

Religion Clause Blog reports: Yesterday’s Great Falls (MT) Tribune reports on last month’s filing of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Friday, a case in which the 10th Circuit rejected a challenge under …

“A Justice Department opinion published last week has renewed the debate at the center of the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative – a controversy that has even made it to the 2008 presidential campaigns – over whether religious organizations should retain the right to employ only those of their own faith when the positions are funded with tax dollars . . . ”

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “Yesterday’s New York Times reported on a 25-page memorandum (full text) written in 2007, but released only last week, by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The memo concludes that the Religious Freedom …

In this Comment, I analyze how courts should address claims for exemption under religious freedom statutes when the religious exercise to be accommodated is speech.

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “In Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (9th Cir., Oct. 7, 2008), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld FERC’s granting of a 40-year license renewal to Puget Sound Energy, Inc. to …

This exploration reveals that the First Amendment as currently interpreted by the federal courts is unlikely to prevent the government from applying the prohibition to sermons, but that churches and other houses of worship have a strong argument that RFRA does block the prohibition in the unique context of in-person, in-service sermons.

Nicholas M. and Robert Luther, “Deliver Us from Evil: Why Bankruptcy Judges May Properly Rely on the Free Exercise Clause & RFRA to Protect Church Property from the Grasps of Tort-Creditors” (September, 11 2008). Valparaiso University Law Review, Vol. 43, …

The Arizona Republic reports: “A federal court of appeals on Friday ruled that using reclaimed wastewater to make artificial snow at a Flagstaff ski resort does not violate the religious freedom of Native Americans . . . At issue was …

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “In First Vagabonds Church of God v. City of Orlando, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49314 (MD FL, June 26, 2008), a Florida federal district court rejected a challenge under Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (FRFRA) …

Consequently, this Note concludes that the Hankins court erred in giving the RFRA a broad scope.

This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit incorrectly decided Navajo Nation. [FN7] Part I of this Note discusses early judicial interpretations of the Free Exercise Clause and establishment of the strict scrutiny test.

Hence, religious interest groups would be wise to steer RFRA’s interpretation in both the federal arena and in the states’ mini-RFRAs, toward the refined, reasonable, and nuanced approach of Sherbert and its progeny.

Winslow Friday, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, shot a bald eagle for use in the tribe’s traditional religious ceremony, the Sun Dance. He was charged under federal law with shooting an eagle without a permit, which is forbidden by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Mr. Friday responded that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act precludes the government from prosecuting him.

SCOTUS Blog’s most recent list of petitions to watch for the May 8th conference of the Justices has been posted.  The list includes these two cases that may of particular interest to Alliance Alert readers: Docket: 07-756 Case name: Yang …

“At issue is whether marijuana use by Carl Olsen, a member of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church (EZCC), is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Religion clause blog reports on the 10th Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Quaintance, No. 07-2137 (10th Cir., April 15, 2008) where defendants attempt to use RFRA as a defense in a drug prosecution.  Religion Clause blog observes: Defendants attempted …

Some federal social service programs have embedded clauses to require that religious grantees not discriminate in employment on the basis of religion. This extended essay demonstrates how the RFRA overrides these clauses. . .