LIBERATE SACRED CANNABIS, ET AL.

THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993

SEC. 2 CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF PURPOSES

(A) Findings, - The Congress finds that –

(1) The framers of the 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 infringe with religious exercise;

(3) Governments should not burden religious exercise without compelling justification;

(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral towards religion; and

(5) The compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balance between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.

(B) Purposes – the purposes of this Act are –

(1) To restore the compelling interest as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) 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 shell 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) Is in the furtherance of 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 (42 U.S.C. 1988) is amended by inserting “the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,” before “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,”

(B) Administration 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).

On March 13, 1995, a U.S. District Court in the southern district of Texas rules the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial powers (Flores v. City of Boerne, No. SA-94-CA-0421). The case is presently on appeal. – From “Congress Passes American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments, But court Rules RFRA Unconstitutional,” by Carl Olson, Holy Smoke.