Defending Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty – the Nation's "First Freedom" – is pledged in the opening lines of the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first 16 words of the First Amendment have given rise in the years since to libraries of words defining, debating, litigating, and legislating with respect to their meaning and, more importantly, their effect on the lives of citizens in the most religiously pluralistic society on earth. In 1986, the Queens Federation of Churches promulgated an official Public Policy Statement on Religious Liberty. In a pervasively more regulated society, the conflict between government an religion increases. In an increasingly more diverse society, the real and potential conflicts among people implicating the expressions of religious exercise and piety also increase. Clearly, education, understanding and mutual respect are key to harmonious living in a just society. When those ingredients are absent, conflict spills over into a public sphere and, often, into the courtroom.

The Queens Federation of Churches has taken a leadership role in working to preserve religious liberty in this nation and, indeed, in all of God's Creation. We have participated in conferences and actions here and abroad to assure that access to the public square is not denied to any by reason of their religious faith. We have worked as hard to assure that all may practice their faith unencumbered by unfair restrictions or impositions by government.

Along with other partners, we have often joined litigation in our nation's courts as a "Friend of the Court" though an "Amicus Curiae" brief. A listing of the cases and copies of the briefs we signed can be reviewed here.

Extensive links to many organizations and resources for Religious Liberty can be found in our LINKS section.

RFRA – Religious Freedom Restoration Act
RLUIPA – Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The United States Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith (April 1990), declared religious liberty to be a "luxury" which, in an increasingly diverse society, "we cannot afford." The Court ruled that the First Amendment did not apply to laws of “general applicability” which had the unintended effect of interfering with one’s free exercise of religion. In response to this notorious decision, the U.S. Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Court’s very narrow reading of the First Amendment as applicable only to laws actually intended to inhibit freedom of religion was seen as the end of any Constitutional right to religious liberty.

RFRA sought to establish by statute a balancing test that the Court previously had previously found to be required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause: A religious claimant had the burden of first proving that a law or regulation placed a substantial burden on the exercise of a sincerely-held religious belief. If the plaintiff’s burden were met, the government entity would then be required to show that a) the regulation or law at issue serves a “compelling” state purpose and b) there is no way to achieve that this “compelling” purpose in a manner less restrictive to the religious practice. Sometimes referred to as “strict scrutiny,” this was the standard of determination previously announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner.

In 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held RFRA to be unconstitutional as applied to State and Local laws; its application to Federal laws remains in force. Congress held additional hearings and determined that the areas of greatest concern and conflict between church and state at the local level were in land use regulations (zoning and landmarking) and with respect to the religious rights of prisoners and residents of mental institutions. Congress responded by enacting the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. In RLUIPA, Congress articulated the same balancing standards as in RFRA (the Sherbert test), but limiting its application to regulations affecting land use and institutionalize persons. In both RFRA and RLUIPA, Congress provided for the recovery of legal costs for the religious claimant when it was found that the government violated religious rights under the law.

The Queens Federation of Churches has joined with a broad spectrum of religious organizations and secular advocates for religious liberty in urging a robust application of both RFRA and RLUIPA to effect the greatest freedom for the exercise of religious practice. Amicus briefs filed in a number of cases argue in favor of the constitutionality of RLUIPA (in the face of counter-arguments by government parties) and in favor of its application to the facts of the particular case. In general, the amicus briefs to not go to the merits of the cases at bar although it would be fair to assume that favorable application of RLUIPA would yield the result sought by the religious party. Those cases in which we have appears as a Friend of the Court are listed and described here.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty maintains an excellent website chronicling developments related to these laws at RLUIPA.com.