ALLcrimesfood&drugstaxestelecomcommercehealthconservationtransportationagricultureveteransbrowse all titles »
0

42 U.S.C. § 2000bbCongressional findings and declaration of purposes

submitted 33 years ago by Pub. L. 103-141 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 190 words · no verdicts yet

in plain englishAI-generated · not legal advice

This section sets rules about Congressional findings and declaration of purposes. It contains the requirements and limits stated in the section.

(a) Findings The Congress finds that— (1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution; (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification; (4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests. (b) Purposes The purposes of this chapter are— (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
the actual law source: uscode.house.gov ↗public domain
(a) Findings

The Congress finds that—

(1)

the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;

(2)

laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;

(3)

governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4)

in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and

(5)

the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.

(b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are—

(1)

to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2)

to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Source credit: (Pub. L. 103–141, § 2, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)

history & why it existsrecord from the source credit
  • 1993Enacted · Pub. L. 103-141 · 107 Stat. 1488

A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 103-141 on 1993-11-16.

all 0 arguments · sorted by: best

0/280

no arguments yet — make the first case