South Carolina's Religious Freedom Act: A Comprehensive Look
Explore how South Carolina's 1999 Religious Freedom Act mirrors federal protections and its impact on state law
every industry needs a leader
•
empower the leader in you
•
every industry needs a leader • empower the leader in you •
The question of whether South Carolina has its own Religious Freedom Restoration Law (RFRL) is a pertinent one in discussions of religious liberty in the United States. While a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) exists, its application to state and local governments was limited by a Supreme Court decision. This led many states to enact their own versions, and South Carolina is among them.
The Federal RFRA and its Limitations
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was enacted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). In Smith, the Court held that neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally burden religious exercise do not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, even without a compelling government interest. This departure from previous "strict scrutiny" standards alarmed many religious freedom advocates. RFRA aimed to restore the compelling interest test, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious exercise.
However, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its authority by applying the federal RFRA to state and local governments. This decision meant that while the federal RFRA still applies to federal actions, states were free to adopt their own religious freedom protections.
South Carolina's Response: The South Carolina Religious Freedom Act
South Carolina responded to the Boerne decision by enacting its own Religious Freedom Act. Codified in Title 1, Chapter 32 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, this state-level RFRA was passed in 1999.
The South Carolina Religious Freedom Act largely mirrors the protections found in the federal RFRA. Its stated purposes include:
Restoring the compelling interest test: It mandates that a compelling state interest test be imposed on all state and local laws and ordinances in cases where the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. This harks back to precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder and Sherbert v. Verner.
Providing a claim or defense: It allows individuals whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened by the state to assert this violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.
Crucially, the Act specifies that the State may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, "even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," unless the State demonstrates that the burden is "in furtherance of a compelling state interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest."
Implications and Application
The South Carolina Religious Freedom Act provides a robust legal framework for protecting religious exercise within the state. It essentially elevates religious freedom claims to a higher standard of review, making it more difficult for state and local governments to enact laws or policies that significantly interfere with religious practices. This can have implications across various areas of law, from zoning regulations affecting religious institutions to the ability of individuals to seek exemptions from generally applicable laws based on their sincere religious beliefs.
It's important to note that the interpretation and application of RFRA laws, both federal and state, have been subjects of ongoing legal and social debate, particularly when they intersect with other protected rights or public interests. However, in South Carolina, the presence of a specific state RFRA underscores a legislative commitment to safeguarding religious liberty beyond the baseline protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Information published to or by The Industry Leader will never constitute legal, financial or business advice of any kind, nor should it ever be misconstrued or relied on as such. For individualized support for yourself or your business, we strongly encourage you to seek appropriate counsel.
