Ruling that Congress had overstepped its power, the Supreme Court struck down Wednesday a 1993 federal law aimed at curbing governmental interference with Americans' spiritual lives.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah - who wrote the 1993 law - quickly vowed to push a constitutional amendment if necessary to restore religious freedom that he says is under assault by such high court decisions.The justices said the four-year-old Freedom Restoration Act - a congressional response to a highly controversial 1990 high court ruling - unconstitutionally usurped the power of federal courts.
Wednesday's 6-3 decision in a dispute between a small Texas city that tried to block expansion of a local Catholic church through zoning laws likely will make it tougher to challenge successfully some government actions that are seen as restricting religious freedom.
The 1993 law "was designed to control cases and controversies, such as the one before us," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. "But . . . the provisions of the federal statute here invoked are beyond congressional authority; it is this court's precedent, not RFRA, which must control," he said.
But Hatch complained after the decision, "Religious liberty is sacrificed. And for what? Zoning laws? If freedom of religion can't even trump zoning laws, then the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause has become a hollow promise."
Hatch said he would closely read the new decision to see if simple legislation may be able to remedy the decision and "make sure no American's religious freedom can be burdened by the government except in the least restrictive way necessary."
He added, "We may need a constitutional amendment. We will consider all options, and we will act with all dispatch to restore the rights that were lost today."
Of note, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had worked hard for passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Church spokesman Don LeFevre said church officials are aware of the ruling but have not yet read the decision and therefore cannot comment.
Although it rarely sends church officials to testify before Congress, it did to help pass that law. They said that without that law, they worried other churches could face the same types of persecution that its members faced in the past century.
Justice Kennedy was joined in his decision by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer dissented.
Congress was reacting to a 1990 Supreme Court ruling when it passed the 1993 law. The 1990 decision had said laws that otherwise are neutral toward religion can be valid even if they may infringe on some people's religious beliefs.
The court ruled in that case that Native Americans have no constitutional right to take the hallucinogenic drug peyote as a reli-gious practice.
A church in Boerne, Texas, invoked the 1993 law after the city thwarted its attempt to tear down part of a 70-year-old sanctuary and build an addition. The church argued that Boerne's refusal to issue the permit was an example of governmental action banned by the law.
City officials, in turn, mounted a full-fledged constitutional attack against the law.
When the justices agreed to study that challenge, what had begun as a landmark-preservation squabble quickly became one of the most closely watched religion cases of the 1990s.
The Rev. Oliver Thomas of the National Council of Churches called it "the most important religious-freedom case the Supreme Court has ever had to decide."
Wednesday's ruling also reflected the high stakes of governmental power.
"Our national experience teaches that the Constitution is preserved best when each part of the government respects both the Constitution and the proper actions and determinations of the other branches," Kennedy wrote.
A broad coalition of religious and civil rights groups contended that the high court in its peyote decision had turned its back on vigorously protecting religious rights.
Congress agreed, and the 1993 law required that any federal, state or local law imposing a "substantial burden" on someone's religious beliefs must serve a "com-pelling" government interest in the least intrusive way.
That standard lets government protect public health and safety but also gives religious minorities far more legal clout.
Dissenting from the decision, O'Connor and Breyer called for reconsidering the court's 1990 ruling.
Souter also dissented but did not join in that call.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act invoked a section of the 14th Amendment that authorizes Congress to "enforce by appropriate legislation" the amendment's equal-protection guarantees.
A landmark 1966 Supreme Court decision gave Congress extremely broad leeway in that regard. In that ruling, the justices upheld a congressional ban on English literacy tests for voters in Puerto Rico.
But the 14th Amendment power of Congress never has been deemed to be absolute. For example, the court in 1970 struck down a federal law in which Congress sought to give 18-year-olds the right to vote in state elections. It took the 26th Amendment to accomplish that.
The court said Congress exceeded its 14th Amendment power when it passed the 1993 law.
Leaders of mainline religions argued strenuously that the 1993 law is needed to protect minority religions.