MFC Brief Vital To Important Religious Liberty Case
May, 1997
A brief prepared by the Minnesota Family Council's (MFC) legal affiliate may play a pivotal role in a crucial religious liberty case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.The case involves a seemingly innocuous issue -- a Texas church that wants to remodel squaring off against a city government that has targeted the church for "historic preservation." But the High Court is expected to use this case to decide the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
RFRA sets a higher standard for courts to use when deciding religious liberty cases. Under RFRA, the government must show a compelling interest before it can violate a person's or organization's right to free exercise of religion.
RFRA was passed to correct a Supreme Court ruling which held that government could freely violate the religious liberty of its citizens as long as the laws in question were generally applicable, and not specifically targeted at one group. For instance, the right of an American Indian tribe to follow its historic practice of using peyote in religious ceremonies could be crushed by a government, so long as the anti-peyote law applied to everyone, not just to Indians.
In briefs prepared for the U.S. Supreme Court, several states argued that RFRA was posing an undue burden in the prison system, where prisoners were using it to file frivolous lawsuits demanding a wide variety of privileges as "religious accommodations." Attorney Jordan Lorence, general counsel for the Northstar Legal Center, legal affiliate of MFC, was asked to write a brief opposing that argument. When the High Court granted extra oral argument time to hear the prisoner-related argument, Lorence's brief took on new significance.
"This case is going to have immense ramifications for religious liberty cases, depending on what the Supreme Court says," notes Lorence."Either they are going to affirm and uphold RFRA, and it will be relatively easy to bring a religious liberty case, or they are going to strike it down and it is going to be relatively difficult to file a religious liberty case."
Two cases currently before the High Court show the importance of RFRA, notes Lorence. One involves Crystal Free Church in the Twin Cities,which is fighting a bankruptcy court's ruling requiring it to surrender tithes and offerings given by a couple who later went bankrupt. "The bankruptcy law is neutral on its face," notes Lorence. The other case involves a Christian landlord from California who is being sued for acting on her religious convictions and refusing to rent to unmarried couples.
In responding to claims that RFRA was posing an undue burden on states because of frivolous suits from prisoners, Lorence demonstrated that in all but one of the suits cited as examples, the state had prevailed. "I will acknowledge that it's inconvenient for a state attorney general to fight frivolous lawsuits, but anyone can file a frivolous lawsuit under any law -- including the First Amendment. That doesn't mean we get rid of the First Amendment because someone can file a frivolous argument under it."
Lorence, who attended oral arguments before the Supreme Court in this case, said the justices seemed very unsure that Congress has the constitutional authority to pass RFRA. "In the past during the 1960s, Congress passed very broad voting rights acts and civil rights acts that were upheld by the Supreme Court against very similar challenges -- but they seem to be distinguishing RFRA from those laws in ways that aren't totally clear."
He added, "It's hard to predict the outcome of a case from the oral argument, but definitely the flavor of the argument was not favorable to RFRA."
Justice Anthony Kennedy repeatedly brought up the clause of the First Amendment which says the government is not permitted to establish an official state religion. Kennedy seemed to be suggesting that permitting religious exemptions from generally applicable laws was the same as establishing a state church.
"What he was arguing was that it violates the separation of church and state to grant anybody a religious exemption from any law," said Lorence. "The argument is that protecting the free exercise of religion violates the separation of church and state. That argument seems to be gaining ground, which is shocking."
A decision is expected by the end of June.
Back to the PFN Front Page