INTERPRETING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT

In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that neutral and generally applicable laws can be applied to suppress religious practices, and that states need have no reason for refusing exemptions for the free exercise of religion. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act responds to Smith, creating a statutory right to free exercise exemptions, subject to the compelling interest test. Professor Laycock and Mr. Thomas draw on intimate knowledge of the Act's legislative history to argue for interpretations that will implement the congressional purpose. They argue that the generality of the Act resulted from a principled determination to treat all religions equally. They elaborate the meaning of the three critical phrases in the Act: ''compelling interest,'' ''substantially burden,'' and ''exercise of religion.'' Finally, they examine three potential applications that were of particular concern to Congress: abortion, prisons, and tax exemption and funding for religious institutions.