The Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, (RFRA) says the following (highlighting added)
The dissent notes:
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
(b) PurposesJustice Alito, et. al., in Burwell v Hobby Lobby:
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
First, nothing in the text of RFRA as originally enacted suggested that the statutory phrase “exercise of religion under the First Amendment” was meant to be tied to this Court’s pre-Smith interpretation of that Amendment.....
On this understanding of our pre-Smith cases, RFRA did more than merely restore the balancing test used in the Sherbert line of cases; it provided even broader protection for religious liberty than was available under those decisions.
The dissent notes:
Despite these authoritative indications, the Court sees RFRA as a bold initiative departing from, rather than restoring, pre-Smith jurisprudence.The general worthlessness of Ivy League law degrees may be taken to have been demonstrated. (John Yoo, of the torture memos fame, is Harvard/Yale. David J. Barron of the execution without trial memos fame, is Harvard/Harvard.)