An act that restores the protection of free exercise of religion which was severely restricted by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is the most significant legislation effecting religion in the history of the republic because it provides strong protection for religious liberty for all Americans, conservative and liberal alike. The lead Senate sponsors were Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Orin Hatch (R-UT). Among the House sponsors were Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Barney Frank (D-MA).

No. The Supreme Court announced a new rule of law in Smith that applied to all free exercise of religion cases. This rule stripped the free exercise clause of its protection for religion. RFRA restores that protection.

That government could restrict religious practices only if it could demonstrate a "compelling" reason. Even then, government had to use the least restrictive means of furthering its interest. This balancing test weighed the government's interest against the individual's religious liberty interest in the context of each particular case.

At a minimum, it means government must have a very important reason for restricting religious exercise.

According to Justice Scalia, if prohibiting the exercise of religion was merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment was not offended. Thus, the government no longer had to justify most burdens on religious exercise. The free exercise clause offered protection only if a particular religious practice was singled out for discriminatory treatment. In short, free exercise was a sub category of equal protection. This placed religious rights in an inferior position to other First Amendment rights such as freedom of speech and press.

In the words of Public Law 103-141 (H.R.1308), its purpose is "to restore the traditional compelling interest test, as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; ... .

No. The Act would not, of its own force, legalize the sacramental use of peyote. It would require a state seeking to outlaw peyote use in the context of a religious practice to demonstrate a compelling reason for doing so.

Absolutely not. It restores the previous constitutional standard for resolving conflicts between governmental authority and the free exercise of religion. It does not express an opinion about the merits of any particular free exercise claim.

Yes. The compelling interest test requires that the government interest in regulation compellingly outweigh the resulting burden on religion. The greater the burden on religion, the greater the government justification required. The greatest burden on religion arises when government seeks to require what faith forbids, or to prohibit what faith requires. As the religious motivation becomes weaker or more attenuated, it would become easier for the government's interest to compellingly outweigh the burden on religion.

No. During the three years between Smith and the enactment of RFRA, more than 60 cases were decided against religious claimants. Orthodox Jews have been subjected to autopsies in violation of their families' religious faith. Unpopular churches have been denied the right to meet even in commercial areas. Catholic hospitals have lost their accreditation for refusing to provide abortion services. Without RFRA the free exercise clause would have remained a dead letter.

Absolutely not. The Supreme Court recently held that taxpayers do not have legal standing to challenge the tax exempt status of a religious or charitable organization. The rule of standing has been expressly incorporated into the text of RFRA.

No. Again, the Supreme Court has never recognized free exercise standing to challenge distribution of government funds to religious institutions. The cases will continue to be decided under the establishment clause with or without RFRA.

No. Section 7 of RFRA makes this clear.

Most legal scholars, including the Congressional Research Service, agree that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation. Because the free exercise of religion is one of the rights the Supreme Court has incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to give greater protections for religious exercise than have been recognized by the Court. Congress also has other Constitutional authority that would underlie this Act, such as the commerce clause.

This has not been a problem in the past, as Justice O'Connor observed in her concurring opinion in Smith. Remember, RFRA does nothing more than codify the traditional compelling interest test. In cases where public health or safety is jeopardized, courts have had no difficulty restricting religious practice.

Yes. Prisoners like other individuals may invoke RFRA protections.

Prisoners would win only cases in which challenged restrictions on their religious liberty do not implicate prison security, order or discipline. Accommodating the prisoner's religious liberty deserves protection, and RFRA strikes a proper balance between the interests of the prison administration and of the individual.

No. RFRA would have no effect on dismissals of frivolous prisoner free exercise claims. Indeed, the committee report recognizes that courts are justified in dismissing false religious claims designed to obtain special privileges.

RFRA is enthusiastically supported by more than fifty religious and civil liberties groups spanning the political and theological spectrum. Never has a broader coalition been assembled to support Congressional legislation. This was no ordinary coalition. It included the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association of Evangelicals; People for the American Way, and Concerned Women for America; the American Muslim Council, and the American Jewish Congress; the Traditional Values Coalition, and B'nai Brith of the Anti-Defamation League.

In the opinion of the Reverend Oliver Thomas, Chairman of Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, and former General Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, this was the most diverse coalition of religious and civil liberties. All of these organizations have been willing to lay aside their deep ideological differences in order to unite behind a principle -- religious liberty for all Americans.