Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/9

 940, 97 S.Ct. 355, 50 L.Ed.2d 309 (1976). A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510–11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citing First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). If the moving party meets the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidence of the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). “If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S., at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted).

Congress enacted the RFRA for three very specific purposes: “to restore the compelling interest test … to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and … to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b). Furthermore, it is undeniable that the RFRA “applies to all Federal and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-3(a). Therefore, I would have no recourse but to adhere to the RFRA and apply the compelling interest test if the defendant requested relief from a federal or state law that substantially burdened her exercise of religion. That, however, is not the situation before me.

The defendant admits that she “does not seek any affirmative relief under this Act.” (Def’s Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on RFRA Defense at 18.) Pursuant to the RFRA, the only judicial relief authorized allows “[a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section [to] assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c) (emphasis added). I interpret this language to mean that if a court finds that a person’s free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened by a federal or state law and the government fails to demonstrate that the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and … is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b), then the court must either rule that the law is unconstitutional in toto, or grant an exemption from the law because the law, as applied to the aforementioned individual, is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943) (holding municipal ordinance unconstitutional which, in application, required religious colporteurs to pay a tax in order to pursue their religious convictions); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) (holding South Carolina may not, constitutionally apply the eligibility provisions of its unemployment compensation law so as to coerce a worker to abandon religious convictions); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (holding Old Order Amish are exempt from Wisconsin’s compulsory school-attendance laws because adherence would compel the abandonment of religious beliefs).

The defendant, however, does not contend that the copyright and trademark laws of the United States are unconstitutional, or that the laws are unconstitutional as applied to her. Moreover, she “does not dispute that religious organizations can hold valid copyrights, or that works on the subject of religion can be the subject of a valid copyright.” (Def.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on RFRA Defense at 1–2.) Furthermore, she correctly states that the RFRA “makes clear that enforcement of a law of general applicability, such as the trademark or copyright laws, must further a compelling governmental interest.” Id. at 18 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(2). However, I sincerely doubt that the defendant would disagree with the proposition that courts further a compelling governmental interest by enforcing laws that are constitutional. Yet, even though the defendant does not question