T o understand the depth of the Court's broad attack on both our religious liberty as well as our elected Congress, we have to look at why RFRA was necessary in the first place. B ack in 1990, the Supreme Court stripped the First Amendment's religious freedom protection by declaring that government could substantially burden religious freedom through laws not clearly targeted at religion. Therefore, a state law forbidding distribution of alcoholic beverages to minors could be used to prohibit a church from allowing anyone under 21 to participate in communion services using wine as a sacrament. Well, in reality, California already has such a law which, on its face, provides no exemption for church communion services. H owever, before you become too discouraged, remember that the battle for religious freedom is by no means over.
Individual states can still pass RFRA-like statutes.
The protections of state constitutions may be applied as well. In addition, cases may still be brought before the Supreme Court to compel the Court to overturn their original 1990 decision. F or such strategic counter-attacks to occur, there must be an effective network of trained and committed attorneys willing to accept this important challenge. This is a nonprofit organization committed to defending religious freedom, family rights, and other important civil liberties, without charge to the client.