Religious Freedom Restoration Acts

Based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause does not limit the ability of the federal government to pass neutral laws that apply to everyone regardless of their religion, even if they incidentally burden religious exercise. The Court has noted that to do otherwise would allow individual religious belief to supersede the laws of the land, resulting in an unworkable society where laws could not be applied evenly.

Despite this warning, Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, and 25 states have since passed their own version of this law. RFRAs require the government to meet a rigid legal test called “strict scrutiny” when they take any action that burdens religious expression—they must demonstrate that the government interest is compelling and that the least restrictive means is used to achieve that interest.

Over time, as predicted by the Supreme Court and by organizations such as American Atheists who opposed passage of RFRA, these laws have been misused at both the state and federal levels to carve out exemptions that privilege religious expression. Christian nationalists and their lawmaker allies seek to apply these laws in new ways, such as undermining civil rights laws that protect LGBTQ people and women from discrimination.