|
775
Ill. Comp. Stat. 35
Illinois
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Sec.
1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.
Sec.
5. Definitions. In this Act:
"Demonstrates"
means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence
and of persuasion.
"Exercise
of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially
motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious
exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of
religious
belief.
"Government"
includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality,
and official (or other person acting under color of law)
of the State of Illinois or a political subdivision of the
State, including a home rule unit.
Sec.
10. Findings and purposes.
(a) The
General Assembly finds the following:
(1) The
free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental,
and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section
3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
(2) Laws
"neutral" toward religion, as well as laws intended
to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden
the exercise of religion.
(3) Government
should not substantially burden the exercise of religion
without compelling justification.
(4) In
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the
Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
that government justify burdens on the exercise of religion
imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) In
City of Boerne v. P. F. Flores, 65 LW 4612 (1997) the
Supreme Court held that an Act passed by Congress to
address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise
of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved
to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(6) The
compelling interest test, as set forth in Wisconsin
v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking
sensible balances between religious liberty and competing
governmental interests.
(b) The
purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To
restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert
v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that
a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed
on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws,
ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental
actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion
is substantially burdened.
(2) To
provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise
of religion is substantially burdened by government.
Sec.
15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government
may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion,
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,
unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to
the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.
Sec.
20. Judicial relief. If a person's exercise of
religion has been burdened in violation of this Act, that
person may assert that violation as a claim or defense in
a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate relief
against a government. A party who prevails in an action
to enforce this Act against a government is entitled to
recover attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining
the claim or defense.
Sec.
25. Application of Act; home rule powers.
(a) This
Act applies to all State and local (including home rule
unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices,
and governmental actions and their implementation, whether
statutory or otherwise and whether adopted before or after
the effective date of this Act.
(b) Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to authorize a government
to burden any religious belief.
(c) Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to affect, interpret, or
in any way address any of the following: (i) that portion
of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion,
(ii) the second sentence of Article I, Section 3 of the
Illinois Constitution, or (iii) Article X, Section 3 of
the Illinois Constitution. Granting government funding,
benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under
the 3 constitutional provisions described in items (i),
(ii), and (iii) of this subsection, does not constitute
a violation of this Act. In this subsection, "granting",
used with respect to government funding, benefits, or
exemptions, does not include the denial of government
funding, benefits, or exemptions.
(d) The
corporate authorities of a municipality or other unit
of local government may enact ordinances, standards, rules,
or regulations that protect the free exercise of religion
in a manner or to an extent equal to or greater than the
protection provided in this Act. If an ordinance, standard,
rule, or regulation enacted under the authority of this
Section or under the authority of a unit of local government's
home rule powers prohibits, restricts, narrows, or burdens
a person's exercise of religion or permits the prohibition,
restriction, narrowing, or burdening of a person's exercise
of religion, that ordinance, standard, rule, or regulation
is void and unenforceable as to that person if it (i)
is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest
and (ii) is not the least restrictive means of furthering
that governmental interest. This subsection is a limitation
under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the
Illinois Constitution on the concurrent exercise by home
rule units of powers and functions exercised by the State.
Sec.
30. O'Hare Modernization. Nothing in this Act limits
the authority of the City of Chicago to exercise its powers
under the O'Hare Modernization Act [60 ILCS 65/1 et seq.]
for the purposes of relocation of cemeteries or graves located
therein.
Sec.
99. Effective date. This Act takes effect on July 1,
1998.
|
