Court Opinion

ID: 9433510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:40:28.782329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:37.106416
License: Public Domain

. Justice Stevens,
concurring.
In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.
*537If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligión, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U. S. 38, 52-55 (1985).