News U.S. Key religious freedom case reaches Supreme Court Facebook Twitter Email SMS WhatsApp Share By J. Correspondent | February 21, 1997 Sign up for Weekday J and get the latest on what's happening in the Jewish Bay Area. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a constitutional challenge to a federal law that the Jewish community has considered one of the most important developments for religious liberty this century. The justices began grappling Wednesday with questions of whether Congress exceeded its legislative authority in adopting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — a law that says government cannot "substantially burden" a person's religious freedom unless there is a compelling government interest. Jewish groups across the gamut, together with a broad coalition of religious and civil rights organizations, were instrumental in moving the legislation through Congress in 1993. More than 60 religious groups forming the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion have defended legal challenges to RFRA at the state level. They also joined in a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court justices to uphold the law. The case before the court, City of Boerne vs. Flores, stems from a historic landmark preservation dispute between Boerne, Texas, and a local Roman Catholic Church. The case arose after Boerne officials denied an application from the church to expand into the city's historic district. The church said without enlarging its building, it would be unable to accommodate its members and fulfill its mission. The Catholic archbishop of San Antonio sued, charging that the city's action violated RFRA. The city responded by arguing that the federal law was unconstitutional. A U.S. district judge agreed, but the ruling was reversed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In taking up the case, the Supreme Court will rule only on RFRA's constitutionality. After that is decided, the case will be sent back to a Texas trial court to rule on the specifics of the case. In her oral arguments before the Supreme Court, attorney Marci Hamilton, representing Boerne, said: "The case is not about religious freedom. This case is about federal power." "How far can Congress go to ensure constitutional guarantees?" she said. "Our argument is it certainly can't go to the point where Congress can reinterpret the meaning of the Constitution." University of Texas Professor Douglas Laycock, representing the church, defended RFRA, saying Congress "has always understood it has the right to protect constitutional rights." Acting U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger also supported the law, saying it protected the rights of minority religious groups. The law, passed by a near-unanimous margin in Congress and signed into law with strong support from President Clinton, was aimed at encouraging governments to accommodate religious practices. Under the law, federal, state and local governments must show a "compelling" interest before interfering with the practice of religion. The law, which created a much higher standard for government regulation, was enacted in response to a controversial 1990 ruling by the Supreme Court that said government could interfere in religious practice with impunity provided that religion is not targeted, according to Jewish legal experts. At issue for the justices is the question of whether Congress overstepped its authority in adopting RFRA by usurping power from state and local governments and from the Supreme Court itself. The law has also been challenged on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment by giving religion exclusive privileges over other expressions of conscience. During oral arguments, several justices questioned whether the law could be used by religious institutions to free themselves from other government rules. "What's at play here is the most important law protecting religious freedom since the First Amendment itself — a law that's especially important and dear to minority religions and those who are going to have a more difficult time seeing their rights protected" if it is deemed unconstitutional, said Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. In addition to concerns about religious liberty, Marc Stern, co-director of the legal department of the American Jewish Congress, sees other critical issues at stake. "If the court writes an opinion narrowing Congress' power to protect civil rights and civil liberties, it's going to be a transforming decision," said Stern, who wrote the religious coalition's brief. Such a move, he added, would undermine the role a "national forum" has long played in "overcoming local prejudices." The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by the end of its term this summer. J. Correspondent Also On J. Bay Area Thousands across region gather to mourn and remember Oct. 7 Organic Epicure Can food stem tide of memory loss in seniors? From the Archives How we've judged other Jews' holiday observances over the years Religion After Oct. 7, a Yom Kippur mourning ritual takes on fresh meaning Subscribe to our Newsletter I would like to receive the following newsletters: Weekday J From Our Sponsors (helps fund our journalism) Your Sunday J Holiday Bytes