Religious freedom is a cornerstone of American constitutional principles, yet conflicts over its application continue to surface, particularly in education. While the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) provide essential protections, significant gaps remain. Notably, public school districts—key battlegrounds for religious liberty disputes—are largely exempt from RLUIPA’s scope. Expanding RLUIPA to include school districts as liable entities is an urgent step toward ensuring that these institutions respect the religious rights of students, parents, and staff.
The Legal Landscape: RFRA and RLUIPA
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was enacted in 1993 to safeguard individuals from government actions that substantially burden their religious exercise unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve its goals (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb). However, the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) limited RFRA’s applicability to the federal government, leaving religious liberty at the mercy of state and local laws.
To address this gap, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. RLUIPA applies to land use regulations and the religious rights of individuals in institutions like prisons or mental health facilities (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc). The law prohibits government entities from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise without a compelling interest, and it explicitly allows private individuals to bring lawsuits against government agencies.
However, RLUIPA does not currently extend its protections to public school districts. This omission leaves a critical gap in religious liberty protections, particularly as disputes over religious accommodations and expressions in schools have grown more contentious.
Why RLUIPA Should Include School Districts
Public school districts regularly make decisions that affect religious rights, from curriculum choices to policies on prayer, religious clubs, and accommodations for religious dress or dietary restrictions. Despite these significant impacts, RLUIPA’s protections do not apply to these entities, leaving students and parents with limited legal recourse.
This gap is particularly concerning given the rise of conflicts over religion in schools. For example:
1. Prayer and Religious Clubs: School districts often face disputes over whether students can organize prayer groups or religious clubs. Federal laws such as the Equal Access Act offer some protection, but they lack the robust mechanisms for litigation provided under RLUIPA.
2. Curriculum and Parental Rights: Increasingly, parents are challenging school curricula that conflict with their religious beliefs. These include objections to certain sex education programs, teachings on gender identity, and materials perceived as promoting secular or anti-religious ideologies.
3. Religious Accommodations: Students requiring accommodations for religious practices—such as prayer breaks, wearing religious attire, or abstaining from certain activities—frequently encounter resistance from school administrators.
Expanding RLUIPA to include school districts would create a clear framework for resolving these disputes, holding districts accountable for policies that substantially burden religious exercise.
Proposed Amendment to RLUIPA
To address these issues, Congress should amend RLUIPA to explicitly include public school districts as entities subject to its provisions. The amendment could read as follows:
Proposed Language for 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc:
“Public school districts shall be considered a government entity under this section and shall not impose or implement a regulation, policy, or practice that places a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a student, parent, or staff member unless it demonstrates that such burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
This amendment would:
1. Expand Coverage: Clearly define public school districts as liable entities under RLUIPA.
2. Ensure Accountability: Allow parents and students to file lawsuits against school districts for policies or practices that burden religious exercise.
3. Promote Religious Pluralism: Encourage school districts to adopt policies that respect and accommodate diverse religious beliefs.
Addressing Concerns
Critics may argue that expanding RLUIPA to school districts would invite excessive litigation or hinder schools’ ability to manage diverse student populations. However, these concerns are overstated for several reasons:
1. Litigation as a Last Resort: RLUIPA litigation typically arises only when government entities refuse to accommodate religious practices, making lawsuits an essential mechanism for accountability.
2. Balancing Interests: Courts applying RLUIPA already consider whether the government’s actions serve a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. These standards ensure that religious rights are balanced against legitimate educational concerns.
3. Strengthening Pluralism: By requiring schools to respect religious practices, RLUIPA would foster an environment of inclusivity and mutual respect, rather than privileging secular policies over religious convictions.
Conclusion
The exclusion of public school districts from RLUIPA’s protections leaves a significant gap in the legal framework safeguarding religious liberty. As conflicts over religion in education continue to escalate, amending RLUIPA to include school districts is an essential step toward ensuring that students, parents, and staff can freely exercise their religious beliefs without undue interference.
Expanding RLUIPA would not only hold school districts accountable but also reinforce America’s commitment to religious freedom as a fundamental right. Congress must act to close this gap and protect the rights of millions of families navigating the complex intersection of education and faith.
Sources:
1. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/
2. U.S. Congress, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1308
3. U.S. Congress, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/2869
4. Michigan Department of Education, Guidance on Religious Accommodations in Schools. https://www.michigan.gov/mde
Comments