John W. and Faythe A. Miller - Page 7

                                                - 7 -                                                  
            Amendment when the Government demonstrates “that a challenged                              
            requirement for government benefits, neutral and uniform in its                            
            application, is a reasonable means of promoting a legitimate                               
            public interest.”  Id. at 708.  The four dissenting Justices                               
            would have required the Government to show that its refusal to                             
            accommodate the appellants’ religious objection to the use of                              
            SSN’s served a compelling State interest.4                                                 
                  In Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the                                
            Supreme Court reviewed a claim that the Free Exercise Clause                               
            permitted the ingestion of a prohibited drug, peyote, in the                               
            context of the worship of the Native American Church.  In so                               
            doing, the Court held that a “neutral, generally applicable law                            
            need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even                           
            if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular                             
            religious practice.”  Id. at 886 n.3.                                                      
                  In response to Smith, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom                         
            Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, sec. 2, 107                               
            Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (1994).5   A                                
            person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of the                            

                  4Justice White wrote separately from the other three                                 
            dissenters, stating simply that he believed Thomas v. Review Bd.,                          
            450 U.S. 707 (1981), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963),                          
            to be controlling.                                                                         
                  5In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the                               
            Supreme Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to                            
            State and local laws.  We assume without holding that the RFRA is                          
            constitutional as applied to the Federal Government.                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011