Pursuant to RFRA, the U.S. government must
accommodate a person’s religious conduct unless there is a compelling government
interest that all but makes accommodation impossible. The government has the burden of
proving such an overriding interest once a defendant shows that a law substantially
burdens his or her religious practice.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that RFRA
was unconstitutional because it improperly infringed upon the states’ rights to
control their own police power. (See City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) 521 U.S. 507.)
A recent case from Guam, has interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision narrowly,
holding that RFRA is still applicable to the federal government.1
In an unpublished case from the Superior Court of
Guam, Judge Michael J. Bordallo, dismissed criminal charges of illegally importing
marijuana against Benny Guerrero, a practicing Rastafarian. Mr. Guerrero was arrested at
the Guam airport in 1991, after Custom’s officers found some marijuana in his
backpack. In court, Mr. Guerrero presented evidence that he is a priest in the Rastafarian
religion and that marijuana is his sacrament. He moved to dismiss the charges against him
as in violation of RFRA, arguing that the anti-marijuana laws made him a criminal for
practicing his religion and the government of Guam had no compelling reason for not
permitting his use of marijuana within the context of his religion. The prosecution
predictably responded that RFRA was no longer valid, having been declared
unconstitutional.
In an unusual display of judicial courage and
scholarship, Judge Bordallo rejected the prosecutions argument and dismissed the case
against Mr. Guerrero, finding that RFRA, while no longer valid with respect to state laws,
remained valid with respect to federal laws, including those laws which govern Guam.
The upshot of this case for those living in the
United States is that RFRA has, in at least one respect, risen from the dead. As the Guerrero
case shows, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1997 Boerne decision can be
interpreted as leaving RFRA valid when applied to federal laws or other federal actions
which infringe on religious practices. Accordingly, a person who is charged with a federal
crime springing from his or her religious use of an outlawed entheogen, such as LSD or
marijuana, ought to argue that his or her conduct was protected by RFRA.
