The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and Its Impact on Federal Law

How a 1993 law changed what the government must prove to burden someone's religious practice.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 4, 2026

Branched from Religious Exemptions in Modern America: Vaccine Mandates, Nondiscrimination Laws, and Military Service

Quick take

RFRA raised the bar for federal action that interferes with religion—the government now must have a compelling reason and use the least restrictive means.
It reversed a 1990 Supreme Court decision that had made it easier for neutral laws to incidentally burden religious practice.
RFRA applies only to federal action, not state or private conduct, which is why many states passed their own versions.
Courts still disagree on what counts as a 'substantial burden' on religion and when government interests are truly 'compelling.'

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a federal law passed in 1993 that makes it harder for the government to enforce rules that significantly interfere with someone's religious practice. Under RFRA, if a federal law or regulation substantially burdens a person's sincere religious exercise, the government must show it has a compelling reason for that burden and that it's using the least restrictive way to achieve that reason. If the government can't meet both tests, the person may get an exemption from the rule.

What Changed: The 1990 Supreme Court Decision

Before 1993, the Supreme Court had largely allowed neutral, generally applicable laws to burden religion without special justification. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Court ruled that a Native American Church member could be denied unemployment benefits for using peyote in a religious ceremony, even though the law wasn't aimed at religion. The ruling upset a broad coalition—religious groups, civil rights advocates, and others—who saw it as abandoning religious minorities.

Congress responded with RFRA, which essentially overruled Smith. The law said the government can't substantially burden religious exercise unless it has a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means. This restored what many saw as the older, stronger standard for protecting religion.

How RFRA Works in Practice

When someone claims a federal law or policy violates their religious freedom under RFRA, the burden shifts to the government. The person must show their religious belief is sincere and that the law substantially burdens their ability to follow it. Then the government must prove both a compelling interest (like public health, national security, or preventing serious harm) and that the rule is the least restrictive way to serve that interest. If the government fails either test, the person can get an exemption or the law may be struck down as applied to them.

Courts have wrestled with what 'substantial burden' means. Is it only a direct prohibition, or can it include indirect pressure or costs? Most courts say a burden is substantial if it meaningfully pressures someone to abandon a religious practice or forces them to choose between following their faith and obeying the law. What counts as 'compelling' also varies—some judges accept broader government interests than others, and the Supreme Court itself has shifted its view over time.

RFRA's Scope: Federal Only, But States Went Further

A crucial limit: RFRA applies only to federal action—federal laws, regulations, and agencies. It doesn't directly constrain state or local governments or private employers. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down part of RFRA as it applied to states, ruling Congress had overreached. This left a patchwork: some states passed their own RFRAs to protect religious exercise under state law, while others didn't. Private employers and businesses aren't bound by RFRA, though they may be affected by other laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which has its own religious accommodation rules.

Why and When RFRA Matters

RFRA matters because it shifts power in disputes between individual religious practice and government policy. Without it, a neutral law—say, a vaccine mandate or a workplace dress code—could incidentally burden religion with little legal consequence. With RFRA, the government has to think harder and justify itself. This has real stakes: RFRA claims have been central to debates over healthcare mandates, military grooming standards, prison accommodations, and more. For religious minorities especially, RFRA can be a tool to avoid being forced to choose between their faith and federal law. But it's also controversial—critics worry it can allow religious exemptions from rules that protect others (like nondiscrimination laws), and courts have disagreed sharply on how to balance religious liberty against other rights.

RFRA vs. The First Amendment

The First Amendment protects religious exercise, but courts historically allowed neutral laws to burden it incidentally.
RFRA created a statutory protection stronger than what the First Amendment alone provided after Smith.
RFRA can be used to challenge federal action even when the First Amendment might not apply.

Key Tensions and Unanswered Questions

When does a burden become 'substantial'? Fines, denial of benefits, and indirect pressure all raise disputes.
What counts as 'compelling'? Courts disagree on whether preventing discrimination, protecting health, or maintaining program integrity qualify.
Can RFRA override civil rights protections? Some argue religious exemptions from nondiscrimination laws conflict with equal protection.
How much does the government have to accommodate before a rule counts as 'least restrictive'? This often turns on cost and feasibility.
Does RFRA apply to religious organizations differently than individuals? Courts have extended it to some organizational claims.

Can I use RFRA to get out of any federal law I disagree with on religious grounds?

No. Your religious belief must be sincere, and the law must substantially burden your ability to practice your faith. Merely disagreeing with a law on moral or religious grounds isn't enough. The government can still enforce the law if it has a compelling interest and the law is the least restrictive way to achieve it.

Does RFRA protect me from my employer's policies?

RFRA only applies to federal action, not private employers. However, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires employers to accommodate religious practice unless it causes undue hardship. Some states also have their own religious freedom laws that may apply to employers.

Why did Congress pass RFRA if the First Amendment already protects religion?

After the Smith decision in 1990, the Supreme Court had weakened religious protection by allowing neutral laws to burden religion without special justification. Congress passed RFRA to restore the stronger protection that had existed before, making the government prove a compelling interest whenever a federal law substantially burdens sincere religious exercise.

Has RFRA been used successfully to challenge federal laws?

Yes, in some cases. RFRA claims have succeeded in disputes over healthcare mandates (like the contraceptive coverage rule), military grooming standards, prison accommodations, and federal land use. But courts don't always agree on what RFRA requires, and the government wins many cases by showing a compelling interest.

What's the difference between the federal RFRA and state RFRAs?

The federal RFRA applies only to federal action. States can pass their own versions to protect religious exercise under state law and state regulations. Some states have passed RFRAs; others haven't. State RFRAs vary in scope and how broadly they protect religion.

Sources

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) — Supreme Court decision that prompted RFRA's passage.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) — Supreme Court decision striking down RFRA's application to states.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (1993) — The statute itself.