The Religious Liberty Protection Act is defended as being necessary to protect First Amendment freedom of faith-based expression. But a distinguished constitutional scholar warns that RLPA is filled with "unintended, negative consequences." Will Congress listen, or cave in to the demands of religious groups promoting this "special rights" entitlement legislation?

INTRODUCTION...

he Religious Liberty Protection Act has been introduced in Congress; different versions are now in committees of the House and Senate. It is unlikely that lawmakers will be able to deal with RLPA before the Janury, 1999 session. In the rush to judgment to pass this act, important legal considerations have been obfuscated, in part because legislators have been "sold" on RLPA by organizations arguing that it is necessary to guarantee legitimate faith-based expression. This agenda has ignored the fact that the Religious Liberty Protection Act is one of the most widesweeping pieces of legislation affecting the separation of church and state which has ever been proposed.

-- Dr. Marci Hamilton

It would seriously alter the way that courts and government agencies deal with religious groups by requiring a "compelling interest/least retrictive means" test. AMERICAN ATHEISTS has argued that this would undermine the First Amendment, and violate the requirement that government exhibit strict neutrality in respect to any religious practices or groups.

On September 15, 1998 Dr. Marci Hamilton presented to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) her analysis of this aspect of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. Dr. Hamilton is one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars; she successfully defended the City of Boerne, Texas before the U.S. Supreme Couret in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case which overturned the precursor to RLPA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. She is Professor Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, and is perhaps the leading critic daring to speak out against RLPA legislation.

We reproduce here three documents pertinent to the discussion on the Religious Liberty Protection Act. First is the "letter of concern" which has been presented to the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee by a loose coalition headed by Dr. Hamilton of diverse organizations, from American Atheists to the Preservation Alliance, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, to The Eagle Forum. As noted, the political viewpoints of these groups are "diverse," and have different reasons for opposing portions (or all) of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. All agree, though, that RLPA needs further deliberation and input from the American people.

We also present Dr. Hamilton's letter of September 15, 1998 to Sen. Orrin Hatch of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary; this serves as a suitable introduction for our third and most important item, Dr. Hamilton's analysis on The Legacy of the Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means Test. This consists of over a dozen examples of how RLPA legislation would seriously, and usually negatively, impact the lives of children, prisoners, neighborhoods and others. It is an important analytical tool in understanding the full, potential effect of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. In our opinion, it also argues well for Congress to avoid any clammor to "fast track" this legislation, hold additional public hearings on the matter, and seriously consider the deleterious consequences of RLPA.

A Letter of Concern: The Religious Liberty Protection Act

Letter From Dr. Marci Hamilton to Sen. Orrin Hatch (9/15/98)
Concerning RLPA

The Legacy of the Compelling Interest/Least Restrictive Means Test

[text only]