Browse Arkansas Code titles and sections
16-123-402. Legislative intent.
Arkansas Code — all titles (historical 2020) · legal_authorities
16-123-402. Legislative intent.
It is the intent of the General Assembly:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases in which free exercise of religion is substantially burdened;
(2) That this subchapter be interpreted consistent with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, federal case law, and federal jurisprudence; and
(3) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
Source: Arkansas Code — historical release 78 (November 6, 2020) · 16-123-402
Stored review status: Historical 2020-11-06 source release; later amendments not reconciled; machine-extracted, not independently legally reviewed; source heading status: text_in_historical_source. A text match is a research starting point; applicability is not established.
Issuing source page ↗
Authority boundary: historical statutory source snapshot not current law.
Open the recorded source website ↗
Record provenance
Stable record: arkansas_code:legal_authorities:16-123-402
Source file: gov.ar.code.title.16.odt
Pages: Not recorded – Not recorded
Passage SHA-256: bcdfeb569b8e94455545c43e31a6c2079917eedef8607caade033de33603205a
Source location: content.xml paragraph 50573
Stored source content
16-123-402. Legislative intent.
It is the intent of the General Assembly:
(1) To restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases in which free exercise of religion is substantially burdened;
(2) That this subchapter be interpreted consistent with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, federal case law, and federal jurisprudence; and
(3) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
Cross-references
Connections may be documented source relationships, shared citations or nearby passages. Each explains its basis; a connection alone does not establish applicability to your situation.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
**(a) Findings** The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
**(b) Purposes** The purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
Source: Supplied U.S. Code snapshot — release unconfirmed · 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
Stored review status: release_metadata_unconfirmed. The source passage cites 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. This identifies an authority to review, not proof of applicability.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
Page 5319
TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
§ 2000bb
(2) a requirement that the least intrusive
method or means of obtaining such materials
be used which do not substantially jeopardize
the availability or usefulness of the materials
sought to be obtained;
(3) a recognition of special concern for pri-
vacy interests in cases in which a search or
seizure for such documents would intrude upon
a known confidential relationship such as that
which may exist between clergyman and pa-
rishioner; lawyer and client; or doctor and pa-
tient; and
(4) a requirement that an application for a
warrant to conduct a search governed by this
subchapter be approved by an attorney for the
government, except that in an emergency situ-
ation the application may be approved by an-
other appropriate supervisory official if within
24 hours of such emergency the appropriate
United States Attorney is notified.
(b) Use of search warrants; reports to Congress
The Attorney General shall collect and com-
pile information on, and report annually to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the use of
search warrants by Federal officers and employ-
ees for documentary materials described in sub-
section (a)(3).
(Pub. L. 96–440, title II, § 201, Oct. 13, 1980, 94
Stat. 1882.)
§ 2000aa–12. Binding nature of guidelines; dis-
ciplinary actions for violations; legal pro-
ceedings for non-compliance prohibited
Guidelines issued by the Attorney General
under this subchapter shall have the full force
and effect of Department of Justice regulations
and any violation of these guidelines shall make
the employee or officer involved subject to ap-
propriate administrative disciplinary action.
However, an issue relating to the compliance, or
t
Source: Supplied 2024 U.S. Code historical extraction · 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
Stored review status: historical_2024_not_currentness_verified. The source passage cites 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. This identifies an authority to review, not proof of applicability.