Column Law aids faith-based groups with land use problems
By ROBERT F. DRINAN
A law protecting religious freedom
passed by Congress and recently signed by President Clinton will not in all
probability bring about major changes in American life. But the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 gives more guarantees to
church-related entities in zoning cases and to persons in prisons, mental
hospitals and similar state entities.
This bill, designed to stop discrimination based on religion, was
the result of the concerted efforts of 60 religious groups, including the U.S.
Catholic Conference.
The denial of zoning variances to churches continues to be a
widespread practice in the United States. This writer saw it vividly in a
recent case in New Jersey where a Protestant Evangelical church was denied the
right to purchase some six acres to relocate its building. The parish, which
had been in the community for almost 100 years, was asking for privileges given
to every other religious body including the Catholic church. But the owners of
property abutting the land sought by the church put forth arguments about
alleged traffic congestion and defeated the churchs request. That
request, however, may be granted on appeal.
Congress collected evidence that similar denials of fundamental
rights to churches and synagogues happen all over the nation. The new bill
requires that in any case involving the use of land or property by a
church-related body the government is required to prove that it has a
compelling reason to deny the permission requested and that the constraint it
imposed on a religious entity is the least restrictive of available
options.
This is a traditional legal test derived from cases testing the
power of the government to impose restrictions on persons or groups. It does
not mean that churches or synagogues will always prevail but it does provide
that there will be a higher standard or a stricter scrutiny required when the
group requesting the variance is faith-based.
The second objective of the act is to provide greater assurance of
religious freedom to persons who are institutionalized, especially those in
prison. In 1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Although the application of that law to the states was invalidated by the U.S.
Supreme Court, the law is still applicable to federal prisons.
Although some observers had predicted that the law would allow
frivolous claims to be litigated by individuals in federal prisons, this has
not happened. In the past six years, only 65 claims were filed by prisoners
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. These claims were more meritorious
than most prisoner complaints.
The rights available by law to inmates in federal prison are now
under the new law available to those incarcerated in state prisons. It is still
possible that federal courts may decree that Congress has gone beyond its
authority in passing this higher standard of review for state prisons. But
Congress has anchored its authority in an explicit reference to the spending
clause in the Constitution as well as to the interstate commerce clause.
The new law gives no guarantee that state prisoners will prevail
in any case based on religious freedom. Courts have recently, for example, held
that federal prisoners have no right to receive the consecrated wine in a
Catholic Mass but only the sacred bread. The policy of a total ban on alcohol
prevails.
The enactment of the new bill is the culmination of many efforts
by Congress over the last decade to guarantee the religious freedom of churches
and faith-based entities. In 1990, the Supreme Court in the Smith decision put
aside what was thought to be a well-settled area of the law. Congress enacted
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to reverse the Smith decision. The
Supreme Court thought that Congress had exceeded its authority.
Congress has now responded to the courts strictures. It is
hoped that the recent exaltation of religious freedom by Congress will help
those faith-based organizations and individuals who have experienced in subtle
and hidden ways an infringement on their free exercise of religion guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan is a professor at Georgetown
University Law Center. His e-mail address is
drinan@law.georgetown.edu
National Catholic Reporter, October 13,
2000
|