- 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 taxPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011