ROANOKE TIMES 
                      Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times

DATE: Sunday, May 12, 1996                   TAG: 9605130108
SECTION: VIRGINIA                 PAGE: A1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
note: below 

ACT MAY TEST COURT'S STAND ON FEDERALISM

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act eventually may be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that have nothing to do with religious freedom, court observers say.

In the past year or two, the court has demonstrated a willingness to revisit the question of federalism, the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Supreme Court last year struck down a federal law that banned handguns within 1,000 feet of schools, ruling for the first time in 60 years that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by passing a law that involved a purely local matter.

Until then, the issue of federalism had been limited largely to arcane legal debates.

Passed in 1993 to restore religious freedoms that had been restricted by a 1990 Supreme Court decision, the religious freedom act was Congress' effort to require courts to apply their earlier, stronger test in religion cases. The law touches on states' authority, however, in areas such as how they run their prisons.

Marc Stern, an attorney who was chairman of the committee that drafted the religious freedom act, maintains that Congress can pass such a law because it has the constitutional authority to protect religious freedom.

Now, however, "RFRA may be the next great battleground of federalism."

It's the same argument being made in the case against the Violence Against Women Act, federal civil rights legislation that allows victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers for damages. One of the first tests of that law is also being heard in Roanoke federal court, in a case involving two Virginia Tech football players accused of rape by fellow student Christy Brzonkala.

"It's a whole new ball game" with the current Supreme Court, Stern said. "It has little to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with the court's attitude to federalism."

LENGTH: Short :   44 lines