free exercise of their religion and is not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and therefore violates the RFRA. In light of this holding and because the RFRA is more protective of the right of free exercise than Smith, see, e.g., Flores v. City of Boerne, 73 F.3d at 1361 (describing RFRA as “a substantive expansion of First Amendment doctrine” and in effect “an assignment by Congress of a higher value to free-exereise-secured freedoms than the value assigned by the courts — that is, strict scrutiny versus a form of intermediate scrutiny”), we need not consider whether the recovery of the contributions violates Smith. The parties did not raise the question of the constitutionality of the RFRA, and we do not consider the constitutionality of the RFRA. See id. at 1356-64 (<HOLDING>). This circuit has applied the RFRA in other
holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute holding that congress possesses ample authority to enact  1326 pursuant to its inherent immigration power  holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment holding congress has authority under  5 of fourteenth amendment to enact rfra and rfra does not usurp judiciarys power to interpret the constitution