Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 is a United States federal law. It states that the government should not “substantially burden” religious exercise without “compelling” justification. This means the government should not make it especially difficult to practice religion without a strong reason for doing so. The RFRA was intended to restore an earlier legal approach to religious freedom. The U.S. Congress passed the RFRA by almost unanimous vote. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on Nov. 16, 1993.
Background.
Before 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as allowing a religion-based exemption (freedom) from federal law in certain instances. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom. The court held that a religious objector should not be subject to a law that imposed a burden on religious practice if the government could not show a “compelling interest” that justified enforcing the law. Based on this interpretation, for example, the court ruled that Amish parents did not have to send their children to high school. It also ruled that workers seeking unemployment benefits could not be denied them for refusing to work on their Sabbath.
In 1990, the Supreme Court changed direction. It adopted a new, more restrictive, interpretation of the First Amendment. In the case Employment Division v. Smith, the court ruled against members of the Native American Church who used peyote in worship. Peyote is a type of cactus that contains a powerful drug. The court said these Native Americans were not exempt from a law that made peyote use illegal. More broadly, the ruling stated that the First Amendment generally does not require religious-freedom exceptions to laws, not even laws that substantially burden the exercise of religion without compelling justification.
The RFRA of 1993 was a response to Employment Division v. Smith. It restored the Supreme Court’s earlier, less restrictive, approach to religious freedom. It also made the issue a matter of statutory law, as opposed to constitutional law. Statutory law is law written by a legislature, in this case the U.S. Congress. Constitutional law is developed and interpreted by courts.
Application.
Under the RFRA, the Supreme Court has granted religious-freedom exceptions that would not have been required based on the Employment Division v. Smith ruling. In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal, a case decided in 2006, the court protected the right of a religious group to use a sacramental tea containing an otherwise illegal substance. And in its 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the court allowed “closely held”—in this case, family-owned—businesses to avoid a legal requirement that they provide health insurance covering particular forms of birth control. This decision caused public controversy.
The federal RFRA does not apply to state and local laws. However, more than 20 U.S. states have enacted their own RFRA’s modeled on the federal law. Proposals for state RFRA’s sometimes have been politically controversial. Critics of these laws have argued that they might permit discrimination, especially against gay people. For example, the owners of a banquet hall, citing their religious beliefs, might refuse to rent out the hall for a same-sex wedding.
