- 4 -
exercise of religion unless it demonstrates that application of
the burden is the least restrictive means of achieving a
compelling governmental interest. RFRA, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb-
1(b) (1994); S. Rept. 103-111, at 8, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892,
1898. The legislative history accompanying RFRA explicitly
states that, in evaluating whether the Government has met the
compelling interest test, cases decided prior to Smith are
applicable, and the test "should not be construed more
stringently or more leniently than it was prior to Smith." S.
Rept. 103-111, at 8-9 (1993), 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892, 1898.
Prior to Smith, the Supreme Court repeatedly held that
neutral, generally applicable tax laws meet the compelling
interest test. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S.
680, 699-700 (1989) (stating that the Government had a "broad
public interest in maintaining a sound tax system free of myriad
exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs");
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 258-259 (1982) (holding that
the Government's "very high" interest in maintaining a
comprehensive Social Security system justified denying an Amish
employer an exemption from Social Security taxes); see also S.
Rept. 103-111 at 5 n.5, 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1895 (citing the
aforementioned decisions). In United States v. Lee, the Supreme
Court stated:
The tax system could not function if denominations were
allowed to challenge the tax system because tax
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011