High Court to Study Religion Issue

The Constitution protects the rights of all Americans to the “free exercise of religion,” a principle that everyone supports.

But does that mean prison officials must bend their rules and make special accommodations for inmates who say they are Satanists, Luciferians or members of the Aryan Nation?

Does it mean that a landlady in Chico, Calif., may refuse to rent an apartment to an unmarried couple because it conflicts with her Christian faith?

Does it mean that Amish families may refuse to put lights or bright markings on their horse-drawn buggies when they drive on state highways?

Or, in a case granted review by the Supreme Court on Monday, does it mean that a Texas city must grant a permit to expand an old church that is located in a historic district? The justices announced that they will rule on the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law that allows religious claimants to seek exemptions from government policies or laws.

Congress passed the measure to overturn a controversial ruling by the high court in 1990. In that case, the justices had tipped the legal scales against religious claims and in favor of government.

The case involved two Native Americans who had held jobs as state drug counselors but nonetheless smoked peyote, an illegal narcotic. In Oregon vs. Smith, the court said that persons making religious claims are not entitled to be exempted from “generally applicable” laws, such as narcotics laws.

The ruling outraged religious leaders across the spectrum, from Southern Baptists to the American Jewish Congress, and they championed a move in Congress to overturn the decision. The 1993 law, signed by President Clinton, says that city, state and federal officials may do nothing to “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” even if it requires bending normal rules. Whenever there is a clash between an individual’s religion and a general policy or a law, officials must try to make accommodations to protect the practice of religion.

Critics say that the well-intentioned law has set off “an avalanche of litigation” around the nation, especially in prisons. The National Assn. of Attorneys General counted 288 lower court decisions involving the new law in its first three years, more than half of which involved prisoners.

In a friend-of-the court brief, lawyers for Ohio and 15 other states cited examples of troublesome claims. Armed with the new law, prisoners have contended that they must be served special meals, allowed to wear flowing robes and long hair and offered midday worship services, all to meet their religious convictions.

Two self-proclaimed Native Americans in a Virginia prison said that they needed feathers from eagles for worship services. In Wyoming, a group of “Luciferians” demanded a private service in the prison chapel and, “in an apparent burst of religious enthusiasm, [the Luciferians] burned Christian hymnals and Bibles,” the state attorneys told the court.

“The problem is, we have to prove it is a bogus religion and a scam being perpetrated by the inmates,” said Todd Boyer, a spokesman for the Ohio state attorney general. “It requires a tremendous use of time and resources.”

Not all the controversies have arisen in prisons.

The law has put in doubt whether parents who are Christian Scientists can continue to be forced to get medical treatment for a seriously ailing child.

*

The case to be reviewed by the high court stems from a clash between city officials in Boerne, Texas, and a Catholic leader in San Antonio. Archbishop P. F. Flores has sought to expand a small church in his archdiocese, but the city has refused to grant a permit for new construction in its historic district.

The archbishop says that the city is violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and a U.S. appeals court agreed. Lawyers for the city say that the law is unconstitutional because Congress had no authority to pass a measure governing local claims about religion.

In California, the state courts have been divided over whether a landlady’s strong religious convictions can exempt her from state laws that forbid discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.

Evelyn Smith of Chico has been fighting a nine-year legal battle since she refused to rent to an unmarried couple, a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. In April, the state Supreme Court ruled against her in a 4-3 decision.

She has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices considered her appeals last week but took no action on it.

They may now wait until they rule on the constitutional challenge to the 1993 law (City of Boerne vs. Flores, 95-2074). The high court will hear arguments and issue a ruling in the case early next year.

In other actions, the court:

* Sent back to California a lawsuit challenging the use of gas chambers as unconstitutional. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had said that the use of lethal gas is cruel and unusual punishment, but the state changed the law after the suit was filed so that gas is no longer the primary method of execution. Inmates are first given the option of a lethal injection.

Noting the change in the law, the court overturned the 9th Circuit decision and sent the case (Gomez vs. Fierro, 95-1830) back to be reconsidered.

* Agreed to hear a challenge to the breadth of the Whistleblowers Act (Hughes Aircraft vs. U.S., 95-1340). In 1989, William J. Schumer, a Hughes Aircraft Co. executive, filed a whistle-blower’s suit and claimed that his company had overcharged the Pentagon $40 million on the B-2 contract.

Hughes says that the suit should be thrown out because Schumer’s information came from a government audit, not from independent digging. Representing Hughes is Kenneth W. Starr, who also is independent counsel in the Whitewater inquiry.

* Agreed to hear an appeal from a frustrated Lake Tahoe landowner who says that officials have barred her from building on her property since 1989 (Suitum vs. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 96-243). The U.S. appeals court said that her claim is “not ripe” since she could try to exchange her land for a right to build elsewhere. She says she is getting a runaround.