- 5 -
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 85 (1975), affd. without published
opinion 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977). Petitioners argue that the
requirements of Rule 24(a)(4) and Rule 200 conflict with their
religious rights under RFRA, that these Rules are invalid, and
that, therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Congress enacted RFRA in response to Employment Div. v.
Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).2 In Smith, the Supreme Court held
that valid neutral laws of general applicability do not violate a
person’s religious rights even when the law is not supported by a
compelling governmental interest. See id.; Adams v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 137, 138 (1998), affd. 170 F.3d 173 (3d
Cir. 1999). Prior to Smith, the Government had to demonstrate
that the application of such laws to religious practices was
“essential to accomplish an overriding Governmental interest” or
represented “the least restrictive means of achieving some
compelling state interest.” Employment Div. v. Smith, supra at
899 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); see also Adams v.
Commissioner, supra at 138.
RFRA restores the compelling interest test used prior to
Smith by prohibiting the Government from imposing a substantial
burden on the free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates
2 In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997), the
Supreme Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993 (RFRA), Pub. L. 103-141, sec. 2, 107 Stat. 1488, currently
codified at 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (1994), was
unconstitutional as applied to State and local laws. Although
neither party has raised the issue, we note that RFRA has since
been upheld as constitutional as applied in the Federal realm.
See Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F.3d 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011