Quiz 104 -- Prior Review -- 1990 Smith decision and RFRA

What did the Supreme Court hold in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) and (b) what did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) seek to do in response to the Supreme Court’s Smith decision? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

Answer:  Here is how the Supreme Court answered that decision in 2020. 

 

RFRA secures Congress’ view of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment, and it provides a remedy to redress violations of that right. Congress passed the Act in the wake of this Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 885–890, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), which held that the First Amendment tolerates neutral, generally applicable laws that burden or prohibit religious acts even when the laws are unsupported by a narrowly tailored, compelling governmental interest. See § 2000bb(a). RFRA sought to counter the effect of that holding and restore the pre-Smith “compelling interest test” by “provid[ing] a claim ... to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” §§ 2000bb(b)(1)–(2). That right of action enables a person to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” § 2000bb–1(c).

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 141 S. Ct. 486, 489, 208 L. Ed. 2d 295 (2020)

 

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.

 

HERE IS AN AI GENERATED SUMMARY OF TODAY’S PODCAST

Welcome to another enlightening episode of the Religion Law Podcast where we delve into the depth of the Tanzan v. Tanvir 2020 Supreme Court decision, and its ties with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), set within the context of religious freedom and law in the United States.

In this episode, hosted by Michael Fielding, you will be taken on a journey back in time to understand the landscape of federal laws on religious freedom, especially centered on the Supreme Court decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990. We investigate the role played by RFRA in response to the Smith decision within our compelling quiz format.

This episode also offers you the opportunity to assess your knowledge on some past discussions related to religion law quizzes. Using direct quotes from the Supreme Court's 2020 Tanzan v. Tanvir decision, we break down Congress's view on the right to free exercise under the First Amendment, and the provided remedies to redress violations of that right.

Furthermore, we'll touch upon how RFRA came into existence to counter the implications of the Smith decision by restoring the pre-Smith compelling interest test to provide a claim to persons whose religious exercise is impeded by government (substantially).

To wrap it up, our quiz will leave you intrigued and informed about what forms of damages or appropriate relief are available from the federal government in case of a RFRA violation, lined up thematically for future podcasts.

This episode is not just an educational tool but also a platform that prompts you to become an influence for good. We hope you find it helpful, and if you do, please share it and leave a review! Until we meet again.

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Welcome to another episode of the Religion Law Podcast, where you learn about
religious freedom and other religion law-related topics through a short question-and-answer format.
I'm your host, Michael Fielding.
Let's see how you do on today's quiz.
Welcome to Religion Law Quiz number 104. 04-104.

(00:26):
Today, we're going to do a little bit of review.
We're still talking about the Tanzan v. Tanvir 2020 Supreme Court decision.
But to really help get this decision in perspective, we need to go back in time
and ask some basic questions which really reflect the current state of the federal
law with respect to religious freedom. So here is the question.

(00:49):
What did the The Supreme Court hold in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v.
Smith in 1990, and what did the Religious Freedom Restoration Act seek to do
in response to the Supreme Court's Smith decision?
All right, so this is a quiz to see how well you've been paying attention to

(01:10):
some of our prior religion law quizzes.
The Smith decision is by far the decision that has been mentioned the most out
of all the podcasts that we have done.
All right, well, here is the answer. And this quote comes from the Supreme Court's
2020 Tanzan v. Tanvir decision.

(01:32):
And when it uses the phrase RFRA, that is referring to the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. Here's what the Supreme Court said.
RFRA secures Congress's view of the right to free exercise under the First Amendment,
and it provides a remedy to redress violations of that right.
Congress passed the act in the wake of this court's decision in Employment Division,

(01:54):
Department of Human Resources of Oregon v.
Smith, which held that the First Amendment tolerates neutral,
generally applicable laws that burden or prohibit religious acts,
even even when the laws are unsupported, by a narrowly tailored compelling government interest.
RFRA sought to counter the effect of that holding and restore the pre-Smith

(02:15):
compelling interest test by providing a claim to persons whose religious exercise
is substantially burdened by government.
The right of action enables a person to obtain appropriate relief against a
government, close quote.
All right, so that's today's quiz. Now, the reason that's going to be important
is because if you'll keep in mind the key question in Tanzen v.

(02:39):
Tanvir is what sort of damages or appropriate relief was available from the
federal government in the event of a RFRA violation.
That's what we're going to be talking about in some upcoming podcasts.
Thank you for listening to today's episode. Remember, religion law quizzes are
for educational purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as legal advice.

(03:03):
If you have found this episode to be helpful, please share it and leave a review.
Until we meet again, keep being an influence for good.
Music.