Written by Don Byrd
In March, the Supreme Court will consider whether the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act oversteps the religious freedom guarantees spelled out in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA limits the federal government’s ability to substantially burden a person’s religious exercise. Much of the contraception mandate battle focuses on the extent of that law’s protections. In what circumstances can corporations qualify as persons protected by the law? Does a mandate regulating a corporation substantially burden the religious exercise of the owners of the corporation?
But a new amicus brief filed today asked the Supreme Court to overturn the law altogether. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Deniston explains:
Its argument against the law was based on two claims: first, that the law violates separation-of-powers principles because Congress undertook to rewrite the constitutional rule the Court had laid down in the Smith case; and, second, that RFRA provides “a political and fiscal windfall” to religious organizations that violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, mandating separation between government and religion.
In recent years, critics of RFRA have predicted the law will protect outrageous violations of the law when motivated by religious beliefs, but the reality 20 years in does not support that view. Most claims under RFRA are legitimate requests for accommodation by individuals who sincerely believe their religious exercise is hindered by government action. The extent to which the mandate on corporations runs afoul of RFRA raises some challenging questions for the court about the scope of the law. But in my view that is no occasion to throw out legislative protections that have served the cause of religious liberty well for 20+ years.
