Religious Freedom Restoration Act Case Study

Prior to the Second World War, religious places remained untouched as they were mainly located in rural areas. However, the period after the Second World War was characterized by an increase in population, corporate farming, a more vibrant timber industry as well as an expanded recreational industry. This change resulted in less respect for the public land, and the situation was made worse by the proliferation of state and federal agencies that have no respect for the public land. It thus becomes difficult for the Native Indians to have access to shrines as the politicians’ promulgated rules that disregarded public land particularly places of worship. One such narrow-minded law that has failed to achieve its ultimate goal is the American Indian Religious Freedom Act that was enacted in 1978. The law made it clear the government efforts of protecting the religious rights of the American Indians not only to express their belief but also to practice this believes through traditional religion. However, this law faced major blows especially on the corridors of justice where the Court viewed the Congress’ action in enacting the American Indian Religious Freedom Act as efforts of the government to establish a state religion.

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

This signified that reproductive healthcare services were not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism. The main petitioner of this case, David A. Zubik is a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and argues that (along with multiple other religious organizations) the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) passed by Congress in 1993. This is so as the ACA mandate requires these organizations to provide contraceptive services, services that oppose the beliefs of certain branches of Christianity, specifically Catholicism. A specific of the ACA is that there is indeed an accommodation for these non profit religious organizations; these organizations may notify their insurers or the government (which will in turn notify the insurer) of their objection to the provision and the insurer must then arrange and pay for the contraceptive coverage separately. The accommodation was designed to ensure that employees would receive contraception coverage but the nonprofit employers with religious

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

The controversial and historic precedent set by the high court has once and for all removed the burden of providing contraceptives to employees by corporations. One of the many challenges of this paper is to delineate between the 1993 Congressional Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment Free Exercise Claus as both were paramount to the most recent ruling. Thankfully, establishing what is applicable to whom and why has become less arduous concerning religious views but conversely has the potential for further infringements.

Rhode Island, Fowler was arrested for holding religious practices in public. “It is no business of courts to say that what is a religious practice or activity for one group is not religion under the protection of the First Amendment” (Douglas). Justice Douglas delivered the verdict with this opening statement, he agreed that no matter the religion, judicial courts should not agree with those who discriminate against other religious practices just because Past cases, such as Sherbert v. Verner, perfectly encapsulate the feeling of injustice deriving from a large business. Adell Sherbert, member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, went from working a five-day to six-day workweek. This new work week included Saturdays, her religious day of rest; she was arrested for not complying with the new schedule even though it violated her religious beliefs. In 1963 the supreme court ruled 7-2 in favor of Sherbert, agreeing that taking away the right to exercising her religion was unconstitutional. Just like Sherbert, Elauf lost certain opportunities in her working field because of her religious decisions. It would only be justified for Abercrombie and Fitch to be held accountable for their

Precedent says that religious values “must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sough after exemption would do to women seeking contraception”. She says that since “ for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial and the government has show a sufficiently compelling interest” and continues on to state that the contraception mandate does not violate the Religious freedoms and restoration act (RFRA). Justice Ginsburg believes that this is giving privilege that could potentially be abused because they are now exempt from things every other corporation who are not religiously affiliated has to provide. Couldn’t one company simply make their claims seem legit and sincere and be exempt from the same thing Hobby Lobby was exempt from? What is stopping other corporations even larger than from preventing their employees from attaining appropriate birth control? These actions unfortunately would cause an even larger amount of people to not be able to have contraception because of their employers. If employees have

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants United States Citizens the right to freedom of religion (Horwitz 1). According to Supreme Court interpretation, the primary purpose of this amendment is to prevent government interference with the practice of religion. Since the 1950's this amendment has been slowly worn away, resulting in the government limiting its citizens' rights to freely pray, worship, and even proselytize. While various laws are often struck down in the Supreme Court, this process takes time and damage is done to freedom while awaiting the decision.

The RFRA essentially prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.” Although they have been renewed, the RFRA has progressed passed the “balancing of interests” test and compelling state interest test in the Sherbert and Yoder cases and required a “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.”

legislation that originally prohibited the federal government and the states from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless “application of the burden…is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that…interest.”

Justice Kennedy joined the court’s opinion and added a few comments on this case. He emphasizes the limited nature of ruling and the narrowest grounds that the other Justices had agreed on. Since the claim is such a broad reasoning, the Court will have difficulty in fighting a case like this in the future. The United States is so tolerant that “no person may be restricted or demeaned by government in exercising his or her religion.” “Might well suffice to distinguish the instant cases from many others in which it is more difficult and expensive to accommodate a government program to countless religious claims based on an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” A dissenting opinion is when more than one judge from a court would write their opinion that disagrees with the majority’s decision of the court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg implies the owner for Hobby Lobby’s beliefs do not speak for the women employees. Giving in to some of the religion claims and at the same time disregarding other’s unworthy accommodation. This would “perceived as favoring one religion over another.” Justice Kegan agrees with Justice Ginsburg, “all but part III-C-1 of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,INC),” it talks about the right of for-profit

This argument is based on information found on oyez.org. In 1963 a federal program, Higher Education Facilities, created grants for educational institutions. These institutions were sponsored by local churches. The grant specifically said the new buildings could have no religious associations for twenty years. After the twenty year period, the building could be used for any purpose the church needed it to. The grant attempted to neutralize the moral background that may influence the college students in the new building. In 1970 a law suit was filed. The sponsors believed if they were sponsoring these educational institutions, they should be able to use the building for religious reasons. In 1971 the court decided the twenty year wait for the building to be able to be used for any recreational purpose was unconstitutional. The court argued grants are considered federal aid; therefore, the federal government has no right to intervene with religious purpose. The first amendment claims the federal government cannot deny anyone of practicing religion anywhere including in a granted building. The court also said since the money was not used to fund religious activity the building was like any other building. The court believed college students would be able to decide with their own opinions on rather to attend these church services. The services were not mandatory to attend. Also, the court decided the period

… HHS and the dissent nonetheless argue that RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel because they cannot ‘exercise … religion.’ … [What is] also flawed is the claim that [the] RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents…

Whether big or small, corporations should not be treated like people, let alone granted religious freedom. The Supreme Court continued the horrible trend of pro-corporation rights. Whether one stands with Hobby Lobby, Inc. and considers this case a success of religious freedom or an intrusion, I see it as the court favored corporation’s rights over personal rights. Female workers should be given the availability to use contraceptives. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Burwell v. Hobby. The case dealt with the free exercise clause under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFTA) and whether a for-profit corporation could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless “application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.