Text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
The text of the bill below is as of May 11, 1993 (Introduced).
HR 1308 IH
H. R. 1308
To protect the free exercise of religion.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 11, 1993
March 11, 1993
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. COX, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WASHINGTON, Mr. COOPER, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. YATES, Mrs. MEEK, Mr. KOPETSKI, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. SWIFT, Ms. SHEPHERD, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. EDWARDS of California, Ms. BYRNE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr. BRYANT, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs. UNSOELD, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. HALL of Ohio, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. WELDON, Mr. GORDON, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. SAWYER, Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey, Mr. RUSH, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. GLICKMAN, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. OWENS, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. PORTER, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. MCHALE, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. WATERS, Mr. WYNN, Mr. THORNTON, Mr. NEAL of North Carolina, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. LEVY, Mr. STUDDS, Mr. LINDER, Mr. BLACKWELL, Mr. MINETA, Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SABO, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. TORRES, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. STARK, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. FROST, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. FINGERHUT, Mr. HOCHBRUECKNER, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BEILENSON, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. HANSEN, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MFUME, Mr. HOYER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. ORTON, Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. HAMBURG, Mr. KLEIN, Mr. DICKS, Mr. STUMP, Mr. EVANS, Mr. SKAGGS, Mr. STOKES, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. VENTO, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. ANDREWS of Maine, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. FAZIO, Mr. COPPERSMITH, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. DERRICK, Mr. SWETT, Mr. LAZIO, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. RAVENEL, Mr. MCKEON, and Mr. GALLO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
MAY 11, 1993
MAY 11, 1993
Additional sponsors: Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. MEEHAN, Ms. LAMBERT, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. KING, Mr. KREIDLER, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. JACOBS, Mr. SANGMEISTER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. MCMILLAN, Mr. GRANDY, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. ISTOOK, Ms. SCHENK, Mr. LEACH, Mr. APPLEGATE, Mr. SLATTERY, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. WHEAT, Mr. ROEMER, Mr. DREIER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. TUCKER, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. OLVER, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. PAYNE of Virginia, Ms. DANNER, Mr. HOBSON, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia
To protect the free exercise of religion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This Act may be cited as the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
- (a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds--
- (1) the framers of the American 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 burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
- (4) in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith 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 Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
- (b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are--
- (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Federal court cases before Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is burdened; and
- (2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is burdened by government.
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
- (a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
- (b) EXCEPTION- Government may burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--
- (1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
- (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
- (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF- A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
SEC. 4. ATTORNEYS FEES.
- (a) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS- Section 722 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting ‘the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,’ before ‘or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’.
- (b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS- Section 504(b)(1)(C) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
- (1) by striking ‘and’ at the end of clause (ii);
- (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘; and’; and
- (3) by inserting ‘(iv) the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’ after clause (iii).
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
- As used in this Act--
- (1) the term ‘government’ includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State;
- (2) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States;
- (3) the term ‘demonstrates’ means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion; and
- (4) the term ‘exercise of religion’ means exercise of religion under the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY.
- (a) IN GENERAL- This Act applies to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the enactment of this Act.
- (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Federal statutory law adopted after the date of the enactment of this Act is subject to this Act unless such law explicitly excludes such application by reference to this Act.
- (c) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief.
SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UNAFFECTED.
- (a) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the First Amendment prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, shall not constitute a violation of this Act.
- (b) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term ‘granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions’ does not include a denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.