1、521 U.S. _, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (1997).1P.L. 103-141 (Nov. 16, 1993); 42 U.S.C.A. 2000bb et seq.2494 U.S. 872 (1990).3No. 93-2267 (8 Cir. April 13, 1998).4thCongressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web97-795 AUpdated June 25, 1998The Religious
2、Freedom Restoration Act:Its Rise, Fall, and Current StatusDavid M. AckermanLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law DivisionSummaryIn City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores the Supreme Court on June 25, 1997, held the1Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to be unconstitutional as applied to thestates. RFRA had
3、 been adopted in 1993 in response to an earlier Supreme Court2decision Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith3 which had construed the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to prohibit onlygovernment action which intentionally burdens the exercise of religion. Congr
4、essreacted by enacting RFRA, which prohibits government action that has the effect ofsubstantially burdening religious practice as well. But in Boerne the Court held thatCongress lacks the power under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply RFRA to thestates.The Clinton Administration maintains that
升级VIP 