judge in Decatur County, Iowa has ruled in favor of an Amish man who refused to display an orange traffic reflector on the back of his horse-drawn buggy, saying that it violated his religious belief in remaining "separate" from the world. Judge Robert A. Rolfe ruled that the First Amendment shielded the group from state laws that require the reflector on slow moving vehicles. In his four-page opinion, Rolfe noted that plaintiff's objection to the law was founded on "a sincere religious belief," and that somehow the traffic safety requirement placed a burden on "the free exercise of religion."

    Interestingly, the decision suggests that widesweeping legislation such as the Religious Liberty Protection Act and other legal remedies may not be required, or even desirable in trying to balance the "compelling interests" of government and the rights of individuals or groups to religious practice. The Decatur County decision found that state's interest in enforcing the law was not sufficient to trump the right of the plaintiff to adhere to a religious practice, according to the First Amendment Center.

    "If the non-use of the sign is critical to safety, why have there been no accidents involving the Amish buggies in this county?" asked Judge Rolfe in his decision.

   The Religious Liberty Protection Act is federal legislation which would require government to employ a "compelling interest - least restrictive means" test when dealing with religious groups or practices. Put simply, it requires the state to first demonstrate a "compelling interest" before enforcing any law or regulation that would "burden" faith-based groups, and do so by using the "least restrictive means." RLPA is based on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) struck down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case.

    Critics charge that RLPA is discriminatory, and establishes a dual-system of laws -- one leniently invoked when dealing with churches, mosques, temples or other religious groups, the other -- more strictly interpreted -- when applied to private individuals, businesses or secular organizations. The high court, in its decision in BOERNE, struck down RFRA as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Justice John Paul Stevens also noted that the law violated the separation of church and state, in that it provided religion with a tool which "no atheist or agnostic" could ever obtain.

    Separationists may disagree with the Decatur County decision, and see it as an unfair trump in favor of religious groups. Even so, it does suggest that at least of the protections or benefits religious organizations are seeking under the mantle of the Religious Liberty Protection Act can still be provided without RLPA legislation. Indeed, prior to RFRA, the balance between the "compelling interest" of society or government on issues such as safety, zoning or other issues and the practices of religious groups was often determined in an ad hoc fashion, on a case by case basis. Compromise has also been a feature in situations like this, and may prove useful in the Iowa case as well. Carol Clark, who represented Decatur County, suggested that the Iowa statute does not specifically target religious groups, and that a compromise of some sort should still be worked out to permit an alternative safety device on the buggies.

   Admittedly, this may be an imperfect solution. It could also be argued that if left unchallenged, the Decatur County finding does exempt a religious group from generally applicable laws which would be applied to non-Amish buddy owners. But it also demonstrates that in this case, the "one-size-fits-all" approach which would be mandated by the Religious Liberty Protection Act was not needed.

[text only]