Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): How Modern Law Protects Churches from Government Seizure

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed federally in 1993 and adopted by many states since, is a legal tool that makes it harder for government to enforce laws in ways that substantially burden someone's religious practice. For churches specifically, RFRA means that if a government rule—whether tax law, zoning code, employment regulation, or property seizure statute—interferes with how the church operates or uses its property, the government has to justify that burden with a compelling reason and show it chose the least restrictive way to achieve that goal. Without RFRA, government only needed a rational basis (a much easier test). RFRA flips the script: government must prove its case, not the church.

The Strict Scrutiny Test: What RFRA Actually Requires

When a church challenges a government action under RFRA, the law triggers 'strict scrutiny'—the highest level of judicial review. This means the government must prove two things: first, that the law or action serves a 'compelling governmental interest' (a very important public goal, not just convenience); and second, that the government used the 'least restrictive means' to achieve it (no less burdensome alternative existed). In practice, strict scrutiny is hard to satisfy. A city cannot simply seize church property to develop a shopping center, for instance, because economic development is not a compelling interest. Even a legitimate goal like tax collection would need to be pursued in a way that doesn't unnecessarily burden the church's religious mission.

This test applies broadly. RFRA covers not only worship and prayer, but also decisions about hiring clergy, religious education, charitable work, and property use tied to religious purpose. A church's claim that a zoning rule, licensing requirement, or asset freeze burdens its faith-based operations can invoke RFRA protection. The burden shifts to the government to explain why that specific rule is necessary and why no alternative would work.

Federal vs. State RFRA: Scope and Variation

The federal RFRA (1993) applies to federal agencies and laws. However, a 1997 Supreme Court ruling (City of Boerne v. Flores) limited its reach to federal action, leaving states free to ignore it. In response, many states passed their own RFRAs to protect religious freedom within their borders. Today, roughly 21 states have state-level RFRA laws, and a few others have similar protections through state constitutions. The strength and scope of these laws vary: some are nearly identical to the federal version, while others are narrower or have different exemptions. A church facing property seizure or regulatory burden may have protection under federal RFRA if a federal agency is involved, state RFRA if the state has one, or neither if the state has not adopted such protection and the action is purely local.

How RFRA Shields Churches from Property and Operational Seizure

In the context of property seizure, RFRA functions as a brake on government power. If a state or federal agency tries to seize church property—whether through tax liens, civil forfeiture, eminent domain, or dissolution of the church corporation—RFRA requires the government to show that seizure is the only way to achieve a truly compelling goal. A city cannot dissolve a church corporation simply because it wants the land for a public building; that would fail the compelling interest test. Even legitimate goals like unpaid taxes or safety violations must be pursued in ways that respect religious freedom. If the government could achieve its goal through a less intrusive method (such as a payment plan, a fine, or targeted repairs rather than seizure), RFRA may require it to use that approach instead.

RFRA also protects churches from laws that, while neutral and generally applicable, happen to burden religious practice disproportionately. For example, a broad asset-freezing law meant to combat fraud might sweep up a church's operating funds; RFRA would require the government to carve out an exemption or use a narrower approach. The law does not give churches blanket immunity—if the government can show a truly compelling interest and no less restrictive alternative, it may still act—but it ensures the church gets a hearing and that government must justify its burden.

Why RFRA Matters and When It Applies

RFRA matters because without it, churches would have minimal legal protection against government action that incidentally (or intentionally) interferes with their operations. Before RFRA, courts applied rational basis review to most laws affecting religion, meaning government only had to show a rational connection to a legitimate goal—a very low bar. RFRA raised that bar significantly. The law recognizes that religious institutions play a unique role in civil society and that government should have to think hard before burdening them. For churches, this means a fighting chance in court if they face seizure, dissolution, or regulatory overreach. RFRA applies whenever government action substantially burdens religious exercise—whether the action is a law, regulation, policy, or enforcement decision. It does not matter if the burden is intentional or accidental; if the effect is substantial, RFRA scrutiny kicks in. However, RFRA does not apply to purely private conduct (a bank foreclosing on a church is not government action) or to actions by government acting in a purely proprietary capacity (like a city managing its own property).

Sources

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (1993)
• City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) — limited federal RFRA to federal action
• State RFRA laws vary; approximately 21 states have adopted formal RFRA statutes as of 2024