DSpace Repository

Rejecting Both Smith and RFRA

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Loewy, Arnold H.
dc.date.accessioned 2012-07-19T19:52:25Z
dc.date.available 2012-07-19T19:52:25Z
dc.date.issued 2011
dc.identifier.citation 44 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 231 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/1913
dc.description.abstract Currently, the United States is divided into two regimes on how to resolve free exercise of religion questions. The official rule is Employment Division v. Smith, which held that so long as the criminal statute did not single out religious violators for negative treatment, the law is constitutional. Congress responded to Smith by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was quickly invalidated by the Court. Congress responded to this invalidation by passing the more narrowly targeted Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA), which requires that to interfere with a religious liberty, the government interest must be compelling, and the means used must have been the least restrictive. This article serves to answer two questions: (1) Should free exercise of religion ever be a defense to an otherwise valid criminal statute?, and (2) Did Smith get it right?
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Texas Tech Law Review
dc.relation.uri http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/text44&collection=journals&index=journals/text235&id=235
dc.relation.uri https://advance.lexis.com/api/document/collection/analytical-materials/id/54XB-D9Y0-00CT-V01V-00000-00?context=1000516
dc.relation.uri https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/Ie7125f9053c111e18b05fdf15589d8e8/View/FullText.html
dc.subject Free exercise of religion en_US
dc.subject Religious Freedom Restoration Act en_US
dc.title Rejecting Both Smith and RFRA en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record