With respect to RFRA, I don’t see why it’s really needed since the freedom to exercise religion is prominently in the First Amendment already. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?
Rather, it states the government cannot “restrict the free exercise thereof” regarding religion. So, what do people not understand?
The First Amendment is the obvious basis for a ruling, but (according to someone on FNC today) Chief Justice Roberts apparently prefers to make rulings as narrow as possible out of his concern for the “reputation” of the Court (his ostensible reason for flip-flopping on Obamacare in 2012).