Article:
Douglas Laycock & Oliver S. Thomas, Interpreting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 73 TEXAS L. REV. 209 (1994).
 

Abstract:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was the Congressional response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith that neutral and generally applicable laws can be applied to suppress religious practices without requiring the states to have a reason for refusing exemptions to allow for religious exercise. Based on the legislative history and statutory text, Laycock and Thomas argue that the RFRA should be interpreted to effectuate Congress’ intent to create a statutory right to free exercise exemptions, subject to the compelling interest test. Accordingly, the authors discuss how the courts should interpret the general phrases “compelling interest,” “substantially burden,” and “exercise of religion” to treat all religions equally. Also, Laycock and Thomas apply the general terms of the acts to three areas of Congressional concern: abortion, prisons, and tax exemption and funding for religious institutions.