Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Name	Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Enacted	1993
Enacted by	United States Congress
Signed by	Bill Clinton
Effective	1993
Citation	Federal law
Related legislation	First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

Religious Freedom Restoration Act The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a 1993 United States federal statute enacted to protect individuals' exercise of religion by reinstating a strict scrutiny standard exemplified in disputes involving First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Employment Division v. Smith, and legislative responses to judicial interpretations. It was passed by the United States Congress and signed by Bill Clinton, prompting ongoing litigation involving parties such as Native American Church of North America, Catholic Church, and Sikh communities. The Act intersects with cases argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, considered by scholars at institutions like Harvard Law School and Yale Law School, and debated in state legislatures from Texas to California.

Background and Purpose

The Act arose after the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that neutral, generally applicable laws need not accommodate religiously motivated conduct, prompting responses from members of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives including Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, and Charles Schumer. Proponents cited examples involving the Native American Church of North America and sacramental use of peyote defended by plaintiffs represented by attorneys from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Opponents referenced concerns voiced by scholars affiliated with Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute about conflicts with statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and administrative practices at agencies including the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Legislative History and Text

Congress passed the Act with bipartisan votes after hearings held in committees including the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the United States House Committee on the Judiciary. The statute's operative language required that the federal government not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means, a standard influenced by precedents such as Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Sponsors and proponents included legislators from factions like the Republican Party (United States) and the Democratic Party (United States), and advocacy from groups such as the American Jewish Committee and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People informed floor debates. The text was the subject of signing statements by Bill Clinton and implementation memoranda by the Office of Management and Budget.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Court Cases

After enactment, courts applied the Act in litigation before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States in landmark cases including City of Boerne v. Flores, which limited Congress's enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, which permitted sacramental use of hoasca by a Brazilian-Brazilian religious organization; and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which applied RFRA principles to closely held corporations represented by litigants like Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation and argued by counsel from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Other notable decisions involved disputes with entities such as Little Sisters of the Poor and rulings by judges appointed by presidents including George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Impact and Controversies

The Act affected litigation involving employers such as Hobby Lobby, religious non-profits like Little Sisters of the Poor, and individuals from communities including Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans, Sikh Americans, and Native American groups. Supporters argued the law protected conscience rights articulated by organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, while critics including the American Civil Liberties Union and scholars at ACLU-affiliated centers warned of conflicts with civil rights protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state anti-discrimination laws in jurisdictions like New York (state) and California. Public debates occurred in venues including the United States Senate floor, state capitols such as Montpelier, Vermont and Sacramento, California, and were covered by media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post.

StateRFRA Laws and Federal-State Interaction

Following federal enactment, many states enacted their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, with statutes in states such as Texas, Indiana, Arizona, Colorado, and Alaska modeled on the federal text and scrutinized in state supreme courts including the Texas Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court. Conflicts emerged between state RFRAs and federal standards in contexts involving laws like the Affordable Care Act and federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, prompting litigation in federal courts such as the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and coordination with state attorneys general such as Ken Paxton and Attorney General of Indiana.

Implementation and Enforcement

Enforcement has involved litigation initiated in federal district courts, appeals in circuits including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and final adjudication by the Supreme Court of the United States in cases where parties included corporations, religious nonprofits, indigenous organizations, and individual plaintiffs represented by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Administrative guidance and compliance questions have been considered by the Department of Justice, the Office of Management and Budget, and state executive branches including governors from Texas and California issuing directives affecting schools such as the University of Notre Dame and hospitals like Saint Joseph Medical Center.

Criticism and Support Perspectives

Supporters including Alliance Defending Freedom, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and legislators from the Republican Party (United States) argue the Act upholds free exercise protections akin to those in Sherbert v. Verner and defends institutions like faith-based charities. Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union, civil rights scholars at Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School, and LGBTQ advocacy organizations such as Human Rights Campaign contend the Act can be used to justify discrimination in employment, healthcare, and public accommodations, pointing to conflicts seen in cases involving entities like Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and disputes in states such as Indiana and Arkansas. The debate continues in academic journals published by Yale Law School, policy forums at the Brookings Institution, and legislative chambers across the United States Congress and state legislatures.

Category:United States federal legislation