![[home]](/comm/images/usccb_logo.gif){kind=logo}
WASHINGTON (June 25, 1997) -- The U.S. Bishops decried the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring as unconstitutional the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
"The action of the Supreme Court to declare the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional is deeply disappointing and potentially damaging to the rights and sensibilities of our religious citizens," said Mark Chopko, General Counsel of the U.S. Catholic Conference.
The decision "has once again made religion vulnerable to the whim of government," Mr. Chopko said. "That is not what the Founders of our constitutional government intended, but that nonetheless is the consequence of the Court's action."
He noted the irony of the decision.
"In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court reduced the level of protection for Free Exercise rights and allowed government considerably broader power to regulate and restrict religiously motivated practices," he said. At that time The Court urged citizens to take their case for protection of religious freedom to Congress.
"The irony of today's decision is that the religious citizens of the United States did exactly what the Court in Smith suggested: they took their case to Congress, and the Court set aside the protections they obtained for religious exercises," Mr. Chopko said. "The Court's decision confirms a government's efforts that restrict legitimate religious practice need only be subjected to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. Religion suffers and the people lose."
He said that the Bishops will respond further.
"We will join our efforts with those of others in the religious community to seek realistic ways in which to respond to this latest assault on religious rights," Mr. Chopko said. "Some will be tempted to seek an immediate constitutional amendment. Although that course might ultimately be chosen, no responsible party should call for an amendment without carefully weighing the risks against the benefits of that approach. We intend to collaborate with others in deciding the proper and best response to the Court."
The statement follows.
Supreme Court Decision on Religious Freedom Restoration Act
June 25, 1997
The action of the Supreme Court to declare the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional is deeply disappointing and potentially damaging to the rights and sensibilities of our religious citizens. By this decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court has once again made religion vulnerable to the whim of government. That is not what the Founders of our constitutional government intended, but that nonetheless is the consequence of the Court's action.
In 1990, in Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court reduced the level of protection for Free Exercise rights and allowed government considerably broader power to regulate and restrict religiously motivated practices. The case presented here in 1997 is an apt case in point: the Catholic community of St. Peter's Church in Boerne, Texas, can no longer worship together without a needed expansion of the church sanctuary. The City has refused that permission citing a generally applicable prohibition on such construction. In its decision today, the Court not only has set back efforts to protect religion but cast doubt on the coordinate role of Congress to protect the liberties of all Americans in their many endeavors. The irony of today's decision is that the religious citizens of the United States did exactly what the Court in Smith suggested: they took their case to Congress, and the Court set aside the protections they obtained for religious exercises. The Court's decision confirms a government's efforts that restrict legitimate religious practice need only be subjected to the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. Religion suffers and the people lose.
We will join our efforts with those of others in the religious community to seek realistic ways in which to respond to this latest assault on religious rights. Some will be tempted to seek an immediate constitutional amendment. Although that course might ultimately be chosen, no responsible party should call for an amendment without carefully weighing the risks against the benefits of that approach. We intend to collaborate with others in deciding the proper and best response to the Court. The Catholic Community in Boerne, Texas, should not lose heart; its case is not over with the City and its arguments have not been tested on the merits.