{
  "id": "RL30221",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30221",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101216,
      "date": "2000-04-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:37:01.041941",
      "title": "The Religious Liberty Protection Act: Background and Current Status",
      "summary": "On July 15, 1999, the House adopted a slightly modified version of  H.R. 1691 , the\n\"Religious Liberty Protection Act\" (RLPA), by a vote of 306-118.. Prior to final passage the House\nrejected an amendment to limit RLPA's application with respect to certain state and local\nnondiscrimination measures, 190-234. The bill (along with a modified Senate version ,\n S. 2081 ) now awaits action in the Senate.\n  RLPA is part of an ongoing conversation between Congress and the Supreme Court about\nwhether religious practices ought to be given special treatment by government and about Congress'\npower to mandate such treatment. Prior to 1990 the courts had generally applied (although often\nwith a light hand) a strict scrutiny test to government actions that imposed substantial burdens on\nthe exercise of religion. But in 1990 in  Employment Division v. Smith,  the Court\nlargely eliminated\nthe strict scrutiny test for free exercise cases. In response Congress in 1993 enacted the \"Religious\nFreedom Restoration Act\" (RFRA) reapplying (and extending) the strict scrutiny test to all\ngovernment actions, including those of state and local governments, that impose substantial burdens\non religious exercise. But in  City of   Boerne, Texas v. Flores  in 1997 the\nCourt held that Congress\nlacks the power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to impose RFRA on state and local\ngovernments. RLPA is a response to that decision and would re-apply a strict scrutiny standard to\nthe actions of state and local governments on the basis not of Section 5 (except with respect to land\nuse decisions) but of Congress' powers to attach conditions to federal funding programs and to\nregulate commerce.\n  RLPA raises several major issues. First is the policy question of whether, and to what degree,\nreligious exercise ought to be protected by federal law from burdensome interference by state and\nlocal governments,  i.e. , whether religious exercise should be afforded special treatment\nby\ngovernment or should, instead, be treated neutrally. RLPA is intended to be broadly protective of\nreligious exercise, and revisions that have occurred since it was first introduced in 1998 have made\nit increasingly so. A second issue concerns whether Congress has the constitutional power to\nmandate that state and local governments give religion special treatment. Questions have been raised\nabout whether RLPA exceeds Congress' power under the spending clause by imposing a condition\non federal grants that is coercive on the states and that has little nexus to the individual spending\nprograms to which it is attached; whether RLPA's use of the commerce power violates principles\nof federalism; and whether its reliance on Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment in its land use\nprovisions satisfies the requirements the Supreme Court has articulated for Congress' exercise of that\npower. Question has also been raised about whether state and local nondiscrimination statutes ought\nto be exempted from its purview.\n  This report provides background on the Supreme Court's decisions in  Smith  and\n  Boerne  and\nCongress' passage of RFRA; summarizes legislative action on RLPA in the 105th and 106th\nCongresses; and frames the salient legal issues that appear to be implicated by RLPA. It will be\nupdated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30221",
          "sha1": "4e04c4e88d09f412c1ec752cb99cf3f7ca71d059",
          "filename": "files/20000425_RL30221_4e04c4e88d09f412c1ec752cb99cf3f7ca71d059.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000425_RL30221_4e04c4e88d09f412c1ec752cb99cf3f7ca71d059.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}