Opinion ID: 153893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Religious Freedom Defense

Text: Meyers contends that the district court erred in failing to balance his interests in his religion with governmental interests as required by the First Amendment and the RFRA; in refusing to recognize his interpretation of his own religion; and in refusing to give his beliefs the status of religion.
Meyers asserts that as the Reverend of the Church of Marijuana it is his sincere belief that his religion commands him to use, possess, and distribute marijuana for the benefit of mankind and the planet earth and that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, which prohibit this religiously motivated conduct, unduly burden his constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Meyers maintains that in order to substantially burden religiously motivated conduct, the government must demonstrate a compelling state interest and use means narrowly tailored to achieve that - 5 - interest. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment guarantees that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ..” U.S. Const. amend. I. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940), the Court recognized that there are two aspects of the free exercise of religion: freedom to believe and freedom to act. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-- freedom to believe and freedom to act. Id. at 303. While the freedom to believe and profess whatever religious doctrines one desires is absolute, the freedom to act cannot be. Id. at 303-04. “Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection.” Id. at 304. In Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Or., v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Court held that the right to free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes), nor does a generally - 6 - applicable criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct that substantially burdens a religious practice have to be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” (citing United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 n.3 (1982)). In Smith, respondents argued that “their religious motivation for using peyote place[d] them beyond the reach of a criminal law that [was] not specifically directed at their religious practice and that [was] concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons.” 494 U.S. at 878. The respondents further argued “that even though exemption from generally applicable criminal laws need not automatically be extended to religiously motivated actors, at least the claim for a religious exemption must be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963),” where governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Smith, 494 U.S. at 882-83. In reaching its decision, the Court stated that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” Id. at 878-79. The Court pointed out that “[t]he only decisions in which [it has] held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with - 7 - other constitutional protections.” Id. at 881 (citations omitted). In addition, the Court specifically rejected the respondents contention that a neutral law of general applicability that burdens a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court held that: The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, “cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.” Lyng [v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439, 451 (1988)]. To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State’s interest is “compelling--permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, “to become a law unto himself,” Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. [145], 167 [1878]-- contradicts both constitutional traditions and common sense. Id. at 885 (footnote omitted). In our case, Meyers’ challenge to his convictions under the Free Exercise Clause must fail. First, as in Smith, Meyers challenges the application of valid and neutral laws of general applicability on the grounds that they prohibit conduct that is required by his religion. Therefore, we hold that Meyers’ challenge fails for the same reasons as the respondents challenge in Smith failed, i.e., the right to free exercise of religion under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law incidentally affects religious practice. Second, we hold that when, as here, - 8 - the challenge is to a valid neutral law of general applicability, the law need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 521 (1993).
Meyers argues that the district court erred in refusing to recognize his interpretation of his own religion and in refusing to give his beliefs the status of religion under the RFRA. In response to the Court’s rejection of the compelling governmental interest test in Smith, Congress passed the RFRA reestablishing the compelling interest test of Sherbert, 374 U.S. 398, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), as the analytical framework governing all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1). The RFRA provides that “[g]overnment 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.” § 2000bb-1(a). Subsection (b) provides that: 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. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). - 9 - Under the RFRA, a plaintiff must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, three threshold requirements to state a prima facie free exercise claim. Thiry v. Carlson, 78 F.3d 1491, 1494 (10th Cir. 1996). The governmental action must (1) substantially burden, (2) a religious belief rather than a philosophy or way of life, (3) which belief is sincerely held by the plaintiff. Id. The government need only accommodate the exercise of actual religious convictions. Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476, 1479 n.1 (10th Cir.) (citing Yoder, 406 U.S. at 215-19; Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 713-18 (1981)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 s. Ct. 2625 (1995). Once the plaintiff has established the threshold requirements by a preponderance of the evidence, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate that the challenged regulation furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive manner. Werner, 49 F.3d at 1480 n.2 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)). Our review of the requirements, although largely factual in nature, presents mixed questions of fact and law. Thiry, 78 F.3d at 1495. We review the meaning of the RFRA de novo, including the definitions as to what constitutes substantial burden and what constitutes religious belief, and the ultimate determination as to whether the RFRA has been violated. Id. Sincerity is a factual matter and, as with historical and other underlying factual determinations, we defer to the district court’s findings, - 10 - reversing only if those findings are clearly erroneous. Id. There is no dispute that Meyers’ beliefs are sincerely held and that they are substantially burdened by 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The issue is whether his sincerely held beliefs are “religious beliefs,” rather than a philosophy or way of life. In analyzing this issue, the district court examined the cases that have delved into the question of “what is religion” and catalogued the many factors used to determine whether a set of beliefs is religious in nature.2 Meyers, 906 F. Supp. at 1501. The court then used its list of factors to examine Meyers’ beliefs to determine if his beliefs fit the factors sufficiently to be included in the realm of “religious beliefs.” Keeping in mind that the threshold for establishing the 2 The district court “gleaned” many of these factors from the following cases: Africa v. Commonwealth of Pa., 662 F.2d 1025 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 908 (1982); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3rd Cir. 1979); United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210 (2nd Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 971 (1984); Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146 (D. C. Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 963 (1969); Washington Ethical Soc’y v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957); United States v. Kauten, 133 F.2d 703 (2nd Cir. 1943); Sherr v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., 672 F. Supp. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 1987); Jacques v. Hilton, 569 F. Supp. 730 (D.N.J. 1983), aff’d, 738 F.2d 422 (3rd Cir. 1984); Church of the Chosen People v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 1247 (D. Minn. 1982); Womens Services, P.C. v. Thone, 483 F. Supp. 1022 (D. Neb. 1979), aff’d, 636 F.2d 206 (8th Cir. 1980), vacated, 452 U.S. 911 (1981); Stevens v. Berger, 428 F. Supp. 896 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); Remmers v. Brewer, 361 F. Supp. 537 (S.D. Iowa 1973), aff’d, 494 F.2d 1277, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1012 (1974); United States v. Kuch, 288 F. Supp. 439 (D.D.C. 1968); Fellowship of Humanity v. Alameda County, 315 P.2d 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957). - 11 - religious nature of his beliefs is low, the court considered the following factors: 1. Ultimate Ideas: Religious beliefs often address fundamental questions about life, purpose, and death. As one court has put it, “a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters.” Africa, 662 F.2d at 1032. These matters may include existential matters, such as man’s sense of being; teleological matters, such as man’s purpose in life; and cosmological matters, such as man’s place in the universe. 2. Metaphysical Beliefs: Religious beliefs often are “metaphysical,” that is, they address a reality which transcends the physical and immediately apparent world. Adherents to many religions believe that there is another dimension, place, mode, or temporality, and they often believe that these places are inhabited by spirits, souls, forces, deities, and other sorts of inchoate or intangible entities. 3. Moral or Ethical System: Religious beliefs often prescribe a particular manner of acting, or way of life, that is “moral” or “ethical.” In other words, these beliefs often describe certain acts in normative terms, such as “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” or “just and unjust.” The beliefs then proscribe those acts that are “wrong,” “evil,” or “unjust.” A moral or ethical belief structure also may create duties -- duties often imposed by some higher power, force, or spirit -- that require the believer to abnegate elemental self-interest. 4. Comprehensiveness of Beliefs: Another hallmark of “religious” ideas is that they are comprehensive. More often than not, such beliefs provide a telos, an overreaching array of beliefs that coalesce to provide the believer with answers to many, if not most, of the problems and concerns that confront humans. In other words, religious beliefs generally are not confined to one question or a single teaching. Africa, 662 F.2d at 1035. 5. Accoutrements of Religion: By analogy to many of the established or recognized religions, the presence of the following external signs may indicate that a particular set of beliefs is “religious”: - 12 -
have been wholly founded or significantly influenced by a deity, teacher, seer, or prophet who is considered to be divine, enlightened, gifted, or blessed.
seminal, elemental, fundamental, or sacred writings. These writing often include creeds, tenets, precepts, parables, commandments, prayers, scriptures, catechisms, chants, rites, or mantras.
particular structures or places as sacred, holy, or significant. These sites often serve as gathering places for believers. They include physical structures, such as churches, mosques, temples, pyramids, synagogues, or shrines; and natural places, such as springs, rivers, forests, plains, or mountains.
clergy, ministers, priests, reverends, monks, shamans, teachers, or sages. By virtue of their enlightenment, experience, education, or training, these people are keepers and purveyors of religious knowledge. e. Ceremonies and Rituals: Most religions include some form of ceremony, ritual, liturgy, sacrament, or protocol. These acts, statements, and movements are prescribed by the religion and are imbued with transcendent significance. f. Structure or Organization: Many religions have a congregation or group of believers who are led, supervised, or counseled by a hierarchy of teachers, clergy, sages, priests, etc. g. Holidays: As is etymologically evident, many religions celebrate, observe, or mark “holy,” sacred, or important days, weeks, or months. h. Diet or Fasting: Religions often prescribe or prohibit the eating of certain foods and the drinking of certain liquids on particular days or during particular times.