The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a United States federal statute enacted in 1993 that prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means to further that interest. The law was passed in response to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws need not accommodate religious practice. RFRA restored a stricter standard - the “compelling interest” test - that had governed free exercise cases prior to Smith. Congress passed the act with near-unanimous bipartisan support; it was signed by President Bill Clinton on 17 November 1993.

Prior to Employment Division v. Smith, courts applied the test established in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), which required the government to show a compelling interest before burdening religious exercise. Smith narrowed this protection, holding that generally applicable, religiously neutral laws could burden religious practice without triggering heightened scrutiny. RFRA was a direct congressional response, codifying the pre-Smith standard into statute.

In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA exceeded Congress's enforcement authority under the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to state and local governments. Following this ruling, many states enacted their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. At the federal level, RFRA remains in force and applies to federal law and federal actors.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), enacted in 2000, extended similar protections to land use regulations and the religious exercise of persons confined to institutions such as prisons.

RFRA protection extends to any person whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by a federal law or government action. “Person” under the statute includes individuals, religious organizations, and - following Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) - closely held for-profit corporations. The Court in Hobby Lobby held that the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act violated RFRA as applied to certain employers with religious objections. The decision generated significant debate about the extent to which for-profit entities may assert religious liberty claims, and about how RFRA claims interact with anti-discrimination obligations and third-party interests. See RFRA - Debate.

The “substantial burden” and “compelling interest” elements are each contested in litigation. Courts have disagreed about what constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise and which government interests qualify as compelling. These interpretive disputes shape the practical reach of RFRA across contexts ranging from drug laws, to military regulations, to healthcare mandates.

A recurring legal and policy question is how RFRA interacts with federal anti-discrimination statutes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some argue RFRA can function as a defense in cases where compliance with civil rights law would violate sincere religious belief. Others contend that preventing discrimination constitutes a compelling government interest that overrides RFRA claims. The Supreme Court has not resolved the question comprehensively, and lower courts have reached varying conclusions depending on context. See RFRA - Debate.

Following City of Boerne, more than twenty states have enacted their own RFRA statutes. State RFRAs vary in language and scope. Some apply only to government action; others have been interpreted to extend to disputes between private parties. High-profile legislative efforts in Indiana (2015) and other states - particularly those that would have extended RFRA protections to cover disputes involving same-sex couples - prompted significant public controversy about whether such laws authorize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These legislative episodes sharpened national debate about the proper limits of religious exemptions. See Religious Liberty Viewpoint and Anti-Discrimination Viewpoint.

There is broad legal consensus that RFRA applies to federal law and federal actors, and that it does not apply to state and local governments following City of Boerne. Beyond these procedural and jurisdictional questions, the substantive scope of RFRA - particularly its application to for-profit entities and its interaction with anti-discrimination law - remains actively contested in courts and legal scholarship, and no consensus has formed on those questions.

• Religious Liberty Viewpoint - RFRA provides necessary protection for individuals and organizations to live according to sincerely held religious beliefs without compelled compliance with laws that violate those beliefs.
• Anti-Discrimination Viewpoint - RFRA, particularly as applied to disputes involving LGBTQ individuals and employees, functions as a license to discriminate and undermines the civil rights framework.
• Secularist Viewpoint - Religious exemptions from generally applicable law create a privileged legal category for religion that is inconsistent with government neutrality and may impose costs on third parties.
• Originalist Viewpoint - Debate over whether RFRA correctly restores original First Amendment protections or whether Smith better reflects the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause.

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act - History
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Debate
• Civil Rights Act of 1964
• First Amendment
• Employment Division v. Smith
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores
• Free Exercise Clause
• Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

1. Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.
2. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
3. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
4. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
5. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
6. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 803 (2000), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.
7. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (2014).