Religious Freedom Restoration ActEdit
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a statute designed to ensure that the government cannot force people to act against their religious beliefs unless there is a very strong public interest pursued in the least burdensome way. Enacted in 1993, it established a framework in which government actions that substantially burden religious exercise must meet a rigorous standard of review. The act was crafted in response to a line of Supreme Court decisions that some conservatives and practitioners viewed as tipping the balance away from religious conscience in the name of neutral, generally applicable laws. RFRA sits at the intersection of faith, government power, and civil rights, and its application has shaped a broad range of disputes over how religious conviction should harmonize with secular policy.
From the outset, RFRA distinguished itself by elevating the protection of religious exercise above the ordinary balancing tests used for other rights. The core constraint it imposes on the federal government is straightforward in intent: the government cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to pursue that interest. In practical terms, this means that when a federal action—such as a regulation or program—significantly interferes with a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs, the government bears a heavy burden to justify that interference. The statutory language also clarified that “religious exercise” includes sincere beliefs held even if they are not shared by most religious groups, recognizing a wide spectrum of faith expressions and conscientious convictions. First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
RFRA’s original reach was limited to federal action; it did not, by its text, dictate how states must handle religious liberty claims. This distinction mattered because the Constitution’s protections against government interference with religion are often read through the lens of the state-action doctrine. The federal framework has nonetheless had a profound indirect effect on state policy, influencing how many states approached religious liberty questions and how courts evaluated them. The relationship between RFRA and state action was later clarified by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, which held that while federal RFRA could apply to the federal government, Congress could not apply RFRA to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision set the field for ongoing debates about the appropriate balance between religious freedom and other civil rights in both federal and state spheres.
Overview and core principles
Substantial burdens and compelling interests: RFRA requires that when a government action substantially burdens religious exercise, it must pursue a compelling governmental interest and do so by the least restrictive means available. This framework is a form of strict scrutiny that places religious liberty on par with other fundamental rights in certain respects. Free Exercise Clause First Amendment
Scope of protection: The act protects a broad set of religious beliefs and practices, including those of individuals, religious businesses, and houses of worship, when government action impedes their ability to observe and practice their faith. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Relationship to other rights and laws: RFRA operates alongside anti-discrimination laws and other protections. Critics worry about tensions with civil rights for LGBTQ people and other protected classes; supporters argue that RFRA preserves conscience rights without invalidating generally applicable civil rights regimes. The balance is often tested in high-profile disputes arising from workplace policies, health care mandates, and public accommodations. Religious freedom Civil rights
Application in courts: Courts have interpreted RFRA through various prisms, with the Supreme Court refining its reach in important cases such as the Hobby Lobby decision and subsequent challenges. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Zubik v. Burwell Groff v. DeJoy
Historical origins and legislative history
Roots in constitutional theory: Proponents argued that the Smith era’s neutral-law approach threatened genuine religious conscience by treating beliefs as merely personal preferences rather than protected rights. RFRA was framed as a legislative corrective to protect religious exercise from government overreach. Employment Division v. Smith
Enactment and political support: RFRA was signed into law in 1993 after broad debate in Congress and engagement with faith communities, civil society organizations, and legal scholars who urged a clear standard for protecting religious exercise against government coercion. The act targeted the federal government’s handling of laws and regulations that could burden sincere religious practice. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Boerne as a hinge moment: The 1997 Supreme Court ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores established that RFRA could not be applied to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively preserving RFRA as a federal shield while opening ongoing conversation about federalism and the reach of religious liberty in state policy. This decision prompted states to consider or revise their own religious liberty statutes to address local concerns while remaining consistent with constitutional directives.
Federal RFRA: text and landmark applications
Core statutory text: The federal RFRA requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and employ the least restrictive means when actions substantially burden religious exercise. This framework has shaped how federal agencies draft rules and how courts evaluate the impact of regulation on religious conscience. First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014): The Supreme Court held that for-profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs could be treated as entities capable of exercising religion for purposes of RFRA; the ruling allowed these corporations to avoid certain contraception mandates on religious grounds. The decision underscored the compatibility of religious liberty with modern corporate structures and sparked national discussion about the scope of religious rights in the marketplace. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Zubik v. Burwell (2016): The Court remanded several cases involving contraception mandates to seek a resolution consistent with RFRA’s protections, illustrating the ongoing complexity of reconciling religious exercise with secular health policy. While the decision did not produce a single definitive ruling, it affirmed the importance of RFRA as a framework for evaluating conflicts between faith and statutory requirements. Zubik v. Burwell
Groff v. DeJoy (2023/2024): The Court revisited how religious accommodations are implemented in the federal sphere, reinforcing the obligation to apply RFRA’s compelling-interest and least-restrictive-means framework to accommodate religious practice in the workplace where feasible. The decision signaled a robustness of RFRA’s protective posture in contemporary labor and employment contexts. Groff v. DeJoy
Impacts on government policy: RFRA has been used to challenge a range of federal actions—from health care and employment regulations to welfare and education programs—on grounds that they substantially burden religious exercise. Courts balance these claims against the public interest of policies designed to protect public health, safety, and welfare. First Amendment Religious freedom
State RFRA landscape and reforms
Proliferation of state RFRAs: In the wake of federal RFRA and Boerne, many states enacted their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts to provide similar protections against state and local actions. These statutes vary in language and scope, reflecting different policy priorities and political coalitions. Indiana RFRA Arkansas RFRA
Indiana and subsequent reforms: The Indiana debate in 2015–2016 highlighted the political and cultural tensions surrounding RFRA. Critics feared that the statute could enable discrimination in areas like housing, employment, and public accommodations; supporters argued that it would safeguard religious believers from government coercion. In response to concerns, several states amended or clarified their RFRA provisions to ensure compatibility with civil rights protections, while maintaining core protections for religious exercise.
Interaction with nondiscrimination regimes: State discussions often revolve around ensuring that RFRA does not override existing nondiscrimination laws or undermine protections for vulnerable groups. The right balance is presented as preserving religious liberty while maintaining steady protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and housing. Civil rights
Controversies and debates
Core tensions: At the heart of RFRA debates is the clash between religious liberty and anti-discrimination protections. Proponents insist that RFRA is essential to protect conscience rights in a pluralistic society and to prevent government overreach into religious practice. Critics argue that RFRA, particularly in its more expansive state forms, risks enabling disfavored treatment of certain groups under the banner of faith. The conversation often centers on whether religious liberty can be defended without undermining the civil rights of others. Civil rights
Right-leaning defense of RFRA: Advocates contend that RFRA is about restoring the historical balance in which the government bears the burden of proof when it seeks to compel religious conduct. They argue that the test—compelling interest with least restrictive means—ensures laws serve legitimate public goals while respecting deeply held beliefs. They also emphasize that many disputes involve sincere moral commitments, not hostility toward civil rights, and that the law does not license harm but guards conscience in the face of coercive regulation. First Amendment
Critics and what some call “woke” critiques: Critics argue RFRA can become a tool to sidestep anti-discrimination norms or to justify discriminatory practices against LGBTQ people or other protected classes. From this perspective, the worry is not about faith but about the practical effects of shielding certain actions from neutral laws. Supporters often respond that RFRA claims must still pass the stringent constitutional standards, and that the protections operate within the broader rule of law, not as a license to do harm. They also point out that RFRA does not erase civil rights protections; rather, it adds a constitutional layer that courts must apply when laws burden religious exercise. In this framing, criticisms that dismiss RFRA as inherently discriminatory are seen as overstated or politically motivated. First Amendment Civil rights
Practical implications for public policy: The RFRA tool has influenced policy design by encouraging policymakers to seek accommodations rather than blanket prohibitions, especially when religious practice intersects with public services, health care, or public accommodations. The result, many conservatives argue, is a more respectful and lawful approach to pluralism, where faith communities can participate in public life without being forced to surrender core beliefs. Public policy
Impacts on individuals, institutions, and the marketplace
Individuals and faith communities: For many, RFRA provides a constitutional backstop that helps protect ritual practices, dietary laws, dress codes, sabbath observance, and other faith-based commitments from government action that would coerce conformity. The framework also protects religious organizations that serve as important social, educational, and charitable actors in communities. Religious institutions
Businesses and employment: In the Hobby Lobby lineage, the question became whether business entities with religious motivations can claim exemptions from regulations that would otherwise apply to them. The discussion has continued in workplaces that must balance religious accommodations with employee rights and public health considerations. RFRA arguments are often weighed against statutory protections for workers and consumers, with courts trying to avoid unintended harm while granting space for conscience. Hobby Lobby
Public accommodations and civil rights: The tension often surfaces in settings where service provision intersects with protected characteristics. From a right-of-center view, the priority is to preserve the ability of individuals and organizations to act in line with their beliefs while sustaining the core protections that prevent discrimination. Courts and legislatures frequently seek to craft standards that avoid coercing beliefs while maintaining equal treatment under the law. Public accommodations Equal protection