In 1990, the Supreme Court, in an opinion involving the use of peyote in a Native American religious service, held that laws restricting religious practices need only meet the standard of rationality that applies to most laws. Because this opinion was interpreted by many to threaten religious liberty, President Bill Clinton urged Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which became law in 1993. It is this law that is the model for the Indiana statute as well as laws in about 20 other states. The basic idea was to require that laws restricting religious liberty meet a "compelling interest" test, in other words, to insist the government cannot burden religious liberty unless it has a very good reason and does it in the least burdensome way possible. The problem is that this approach leaves the difficult balancing to the courts. The publicly accountable legislature can avoid doing the hard work of striking the balance itself.