Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
At Hearing
on
S. 2148,
The Religious Liberty Protection Act
June 23, 1998
Mr. Chairman, the right to practice any religion of our choice -- or no religion at all -- is one of the cornerstones of our Constitutional liberties, protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
No law or ordinance that denies or restricts that right should be tolerated. That is why I sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and supported its passage. That is why I continue to support the goal of the Religious Liberty Protection Act (“RLPA”) to protect our right to the free exercise of religion without interference from such laws.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1977), that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional because the statute applies a strict standard of judicial review to otherwise neutral, generally applicable laws. The Supreme Court in Boerne held that courts should subject such laws to a rational basis test -- not a strict scrutiny standard. The Court based its ruling on its prior precedent on this issue, Oregon v. Smith, 492 U.S. 872 (1990), and on what the Court viewed as a weak legislative record which lacked sufficient evidence of hostility toward or pervasive discrimination against religious practice to justify the RFRA’s broad reach.
As drafted, the RLPA would subject laws, including neutral, generally applicable laws, such as zoning rules -- which only incidentally impinge on a person’s right to practice religion -- to a strict scrutiny standard of judicial review.
This language is very similar to the RFRA provisions that the Court found unconstitutional in Boerne. We must therefore proceed carefully to ensure that the RLPA passes constitutional muster, and work diligently to develop the legislative record that the Supreme Court found wanting during its review of our prior efforts with the RFRA. We must also ensure that any statute we consider does not unduly burden the efforts of states and localities to administer neutral, generally applicable laws.
I look forward to this hearing on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, the right to practice any religion of our choice -- or no religion at all -- is one of the cornerstones of our Constitutional liberties, protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
No law or ordinance that denies or restricts that right should be tolerated. That is why I sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and supported its passage. That is why I continue to support the goal of the Religious Liberty Protection Act (“RLPA”) to protect our right to the free exercise of religion without interference from such laws.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Boerne v. Flores, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1977), that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional because the statute applies a strict standard of judicial review to otherwise neutral, generally applicable laws. The Supreme Court in Boerne held that courts should subject such laws to a rational basis test -- not a strict scrutiny standard. The Court based its ruling on its prior precedent on this issue, Oregon v. Smith, 492 U.S. 872 (1990), and on what the Court viewed as a weak legislative record which lacked sufficient evidence of hostility toward or pervasive discrimination against religious practice to justify the RFRA’s broad reach.
As drafted, the RLPA would subject laws, including neutral, generally applicable laws, such as zoning rules -- which only incidentally impinge on a person’s right to practice religion -- to a strict scrutiny standard of judicial review.
This language is very similar to the RFRA provisions that the Court found unconstitutional in Boerne. We must therefore proceed carefully to ensure that the RLPA passes constitutional muster, and work diligently to develop the legislative record that the Supreme Court found wanting during its review of our prior efforts with the RFRA. We must also ensure that any statute we consider does not unduly burden the efforts of states and localities to administer neutral, generally applicable laws.
I look forward to this hearing on this important issue.