{
  "id": "97-795",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "97-795",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100037,
      "date": "1999-01-21",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:47:32.871941",
      "title": "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Its Rise, Fall, and Current Status",
      "summary": "In  City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores   (1)  the Supreme Court on\nJune 25, 1997, held the \"Religious\nFreedom Restoration Act\" (RFRA) to be unconstitutional as applied to the states. Congress enacted\nRFRA in 1993 in response to an earlier Supreme Court decision --  Employment Division,\nOregon\nDepartment of Human Resources v. Smith   (2)  -- which had construed\nthe free exercise clause of the\nFirst Amendment to prohibit only government action which  intentionally  burdens\nthe exercise of\nreligion. In RFRA Congress sought to broaden the legal protection afforded religious exercise by\nprohibiting government action that has the  effect  of substantially burdening\nreligious practice as\nwell. But in  Boerne  the Court held that Congress lacks the power under Section 5 of\nthe Fourteenth\nAmendment to apply RFRA to the states.\n  The Clinton Administration maintains that RFRA continues to be valid for the federal\ngovernment, and at least one federal appellate court has sustained that position .  In\naddition, in the\n105th Congress bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate to re-apply RFRA's\nstandards\nto the states using Congress' interstate commerce and spending clause powers ( S. 2148 ,\n H.R. 4019 ). A subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee ordered a modified\nversion of  H.R. 4019  reported to the full committee; but further consideration fell\nvictim to the Committee's impeachment inquiry. \n  This report briefly summarizes  Smith , the legislative history of RFRA, the \n decision in  Boerne ,\nRFRA's current legal status, and Congressional efforts to respond to  Boerne . \n     1.  \u00a0521 U.S. ___, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997).\n  2.  \u00a0494 U.S.  872 (1990).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/97-795",
          "sha1": "32c53d3099eb99d641ef327de31fbed066dea9c1",
          "filename": "files/19990121_97-795_32c53d3099eb99d641ef327de31fbed066dea9c1.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19990121_97-795_32c53d3099eb99d641ef327de31fbed066dea9c1.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc807468/",
      "id": "97-795_1998Jun25",
      "date": "1998-06-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Its Rise, Fall, and Current Status",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/19980625_97-795_07dcd3a3bd5f80d9da32927aa13ea3890097d8f4.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980625_97-795_07dcd3a3bd5f80d9da32927aa13ea3890097d8f4.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}