RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

A history of the law,

WASHINGTON With President Trump in the White House, religious conservatives hope he will follow through on a campaign promise to make his “first priority” protecting religious liberty.

They’re gunning for him to sign an executive order that builds on a 1993 law protecting religious freedom. That law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was enacted in response to a Supreme Court ruling on the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Lawmakers passed it to restore a requirement for the government to prove a compelling interest for any law that violates someone’s religious belief.

The Supreme Court has said the law can’t be applied to states, but is valid at the federal level, prompting many states to enact their own versions.

Here’s a look at the history of the law.

APRIL 17, 1990

The Supreme Court ruled against two Oregon drug and alcohol counselors who had been fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization for ingesting the hallucinogen peyote as part of a religious ceremony at their Native American church. Ingesting peyote was illegal in Oregon. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the use of peyote was not protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

NOV. 16, 1993

Backed by a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The legislation said a government can “substantially burden” a person’s exercise of religion only if it advances an important government interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible.

JUNE 25, 1997

In a case involving the archbishop of San Antonio’s dispute with local zoning authorities over a church expansion, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the act is unconstitutional as applied to states. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that Congress lacked the authority to impose the law on states. He also said Congress hadn’t shown a record of extensive denials of religious liberty and had acted out of proportion to what it was trying to achieve.

FEB. 21, 2006

In a unanimous decision, the court said a small religious sect could continue to import a hallucinogenic tea used in religious ceremonies. The tea contains a drug prohibited by federal law. By the time of the ruling, 13 states had passed their own versions of the federal law, in reaction to the court’s previous decision that it didn’t apply to states.

JUNE 30, 2014

A divided Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations can decide for religious reasons not to include contraception coverage in health insurance plans offered to employees.

The five justices in the majority characterized their opinion as a narrow ruling applying to four types of birth control and to the two familyowned corporations that brought the challenge — the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling “invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith.”

MARCH 26, 2015

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case, Gov. Mike Pence said Indiana needed its own version of the federal law to “ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law.” Indiana became the 20th state to enact such a law. Opponents feared it could be used to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people in the name of religion. After the bill’s passage sparked a national firestorm, Pence signed a revised version that which prevented the law from eroding local human rights protections.

2017

A leaked draft version of President Trump’s executive order directs federal agencies to fully implement the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The draft said the government shouldn’t “substantially burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious exercise” — unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. And a policy cannot be considered “compelling” just because they’ve been “applied neutrally, broadly, or across the federal government.”