The Religion Law Quiz Podcast

Religion Law Quiz #7

Today we discuss whether RFRA applies to the states.  Let's see how you do.
 
QUESTION: True or False: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) applies to the States. 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
ANSWER: FALSE.  This is a trick question.  It is true that when Congress passed RFRA it relied on the 14th Amendment (Section 5) to make it applicable to the State.  However, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997) the Supreme Court ruled RFRA was in excess of the powers allotted to Congress under that provision. 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #6

Today we talk about the Supreme Court's holding in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).  Let's see how you do.  
 
Which of the following item(s) did the Supreme Court hold in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)?
 
A - For-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
 
B - For-profit corporations have free rein to take steps that impose disadvantages on others.
 
C - RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on women. 
 
D - A federal regulation’s restriction on the activities of a for-profit closely held corporation must comply with RFRA.
 
 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
Answer: D.  See the following two quotes from the decision:
 
We do not hold, as the principal dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Post, at 2787 (opinion of GINSBURG, J.). Nor do we hold, as the dissent implies, that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose “ disadvantages ... on others” or that require “the general public [to] pick up the tab.” Post, at 2787. And we certainly do not hold or suggest that “ RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on ... thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby.”
….
For all these reasons, we hold that a federal regulation’s restriction on the activities of a for-profit closely held corporation must comply with RFRA.
 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 692-93, 719 (2014)
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #5

This Quiz addresses the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  Let's see how you do.  
 
In honor of Quiz #3 (which had three-parts), I can't help but ask another three-part question. 
 
(1) What is RFRA? 
(2) What does RFRA prohibit? 
(3) What burden government show in order to burden a person's religious exercise? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
RFRA stands for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  It was passed in 1993 by Congress in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).  In describing RFRA, the Supreme Court has stated:
 
“[L]aws [that are] ‘neutral’ toward religion,” Congress found, “may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(2); see also § 2000bb(a)(4). In order to ensure broad protection for religious liberty, RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” § 2000bb–1(a). If the Government substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion, under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” § 2000bb–1(b).
 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 694–95, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2761, 189 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2014)
 
The Supreme Court further stated:
 
RFRA prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–1(a), (b) (emphasis added).
 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 705, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2767, 189 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2014).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #4

Today's Quiz addresses the question of what did the Supreme Court hold in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, (1990) and why that decision was such a landmark decision.  Let's see how you do. 
 
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) was a major turning point in Supreme Court jurisprudence. 
 
QUESTION: What did Smith hold and why was it such a turning point? 
 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
ANSWER: The Supreme Court in Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 356-57 (2015) answered that as follows:
 
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden the exercise of religion usually do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  Id., at 878–882, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Smith largely repudiated the method of analysis used in prior free exercise cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963). In those cases, we employed a balancing test that considered whether a challenged government action that substantially burdened the exercise of religion was necessary to further a compelling state interest. See Yoder, supra, at 214, 219, 92 S.Ct. 1526; Sherbert, supra, at 403, 406, 83 S.Ct. 1790.
 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #3

In honor of Quiz #3, we are having a 3-part quiz on RLUIPA.  Let's see how you do.  
 
QUESTION: There is a specific federal statute commonly known by the acronym RLUIPA.  So, (a) what does RLUIPA stand for, (b) where is it codified, and (c) what does it prohibit? 
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
 
ANSWER: “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., which prohibits a state or local government from taking any action that substantially burdens the religious exercise of an institutionalized person unless the government demonstrates that the action constitutes the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.“  Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352, 355 (2015).
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.
 

Religion Law Quiz #2

Today's Quiz deals with generally applicable non-discrimination laws and discretionary exemptions to those laws.  Let's see how you do.  
 
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that laws which incidentally burden religion are typically not subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause provided that they are neutral and generally applicable.    With that backdrop in mind, now assume that a governmental unit (such as a state or city) adopts (1) a generally applicable non-discrimination clause which (2) has a system of exemptions but (3) those exemptions are granted at the sole discretion of a designated government official.  Does this law pass muster under the First Amendment?
 
(Scroll down for the answer.)
 
 
Answer: No, it does not.  This was the situation addressed recently by the Supreme Court in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 141 S.Ct. 1868 (2021).  The Supreme Court stated in relevant part:
 
No matter the level of deference we extend to the City, the inclusion of a formal system of entirely discretionary exceptions in section 3.21 renders the contractual non-discrimination requirement not generally applicable.
….
The creation of a formal mechanism for granting exceptions renders a policy not generally applicable, regardless whether any exceptions have been given, because it “invite[s]” the government to decide which reasons for not complying with the policy are worthy of solicitude,  Smith, 494 U.S. at 884, 110 S.Ct. 1595—here, at the Commissioner’s “sole discretion.”
 
Id. At 1878 and 1879. 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.

Religion Law Quiz #1

Welcome to the inaugural episode of The Religion Law Quiz Podcast!  Today we cover a True/False question dealing with the First Amendment and the ministerial exception.  Let's see how you do.  
 
TRUE OR FALSE: Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.
 
(Scroll down for the answer)
 
ANSWER: True
 
“The Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.”  Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171, 184 (2012). 
….
P 188-89
”We agree that there is…a ministerial exception [in the Constitution]. The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.“  Id. At 188-89. 
 
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are informal, non-binding hypothetical questions intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.