Opinion ID: 2582375
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rfra

Text: As mentioned by Sunderland, in 1993 Congress reacted by enacting RFRA, which was designed to supersede the Smith decision and reinvigorate the Sherbert/Yoder analysis. [7] See RFRA, Pub.L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993). RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 set forth the following standard: (a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person  (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (Emphasis added.) RFRA purported to make that framework applicable to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise. . . . RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(a). However, this court has already taken note of the fact that the United States Supreme Court, in Boerne, [8] invalidated RFRA insofar as it exceeded the enumerated powers of Congress and was, therefore, unconstitutional. Sullivan, 87 Hawai`i at 246, 953 P.2d at 1344. As a result, RFRA is inoperative as to the individual states. See Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir.2006) (The Supreme Court held that the RFRA could not be enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which empowers Congress to enforce the Amendment's other provisions against the states.); Spies v. Voinovich, 173 F.3d 398, 403 (6th Cir.1999) ([T]he Supreme Court has declared [RFRA] unconstitutional as applied to the states.); Denson v. Marshall, 44 F.Supp.2d 400, 402 (D.Mass.1999) (The Supreme Court recently held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to state governments.). [9]