The Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Explained

Congress passed the RFRA in response to court decisions that they felt weakened religious liberty. The RFRA made it tougher for the government to interfere with people’s religious practices. It remains one of the strongest legal protections for religious rights in the United States. Understanding how this law works can help you protect your rights and recognize violations.

This article provides:

• An overview of the RFRA, including the U.S. Supreme Court‘s interpretation of the law
• Key ways the RFRA protects a person’s exercise of religion, as well as its limitations
• Practical insight into how this federal statute operates in real life

If you suspect your rights have been violated, consider contacting a civil rights attorney. Doing so doesn’t mean you’re going to sue anyone, but it can ensure that you’re informed about your legal options and the remedies available to you.

In the meantime, let’s start with some RFRA basics.

What the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Does

The RFRA protects people from federal government rules or actions that burden their religious practices. When those burdens arise, the RFRA requires the government to justify them under the highest standard in constitutional law. We call this standard “strict scrutiny.”

Under the RFRA, the federal government is prohibited from placing a substantial burden on religious exercise unless it can satisfy this standard. Strict scrutiny requires the government to show two things:

• It has a compelling governmental interest
• It’s using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest

Compelling governmental interests must be of the utmost importance, such as protecting public safety or preventing discrimination. The second requirement means the government must address the compelling interest with the approach that least interferes with the free exercise of religion.

If the government can’t satisfy this test, courts can block the enforcement of the relevant law. They can also grant exemptions or require the government to change how it applies certain rules.

The RFRA applies only to the federal government. It can also influence how the states treat civil liberties and constitutional rights. Many have passed their own RFRAs to shield religious practices from local interference.

Doesn’t the First Amendment Protect Religious Freedom?

The First Amendment protects religious freedom through two key clauses. The Free Exercise Clause protects people’s right to practice their faith, while the Establishment Clause prevents the government from promoting or supporting one religion over another.

Together, these clauses create a strong promise of religious liberty. For many years, the Supreme Court didn’t apply a clear or consistent test to protect religious practice. As a result, people sometimes had to follow general laws even when they conflicted with their beliefs. This uneven protection highlighted the need for stronger safeguards.

Background of the RFRA

Before the RFRA, the First Amendment didn’t provide strong, consistent protection for religious exercise. It fully protected religious beliefs, but the Court often allowed limits on religious practices whenever the government had a reasonable goal.

At the same time, the Establishment Clause  focused on preventing government-sponsored religion, not on shielding people from burdens on their faith. Hampered by these interpretations, protection of religious practices was varied and sometimes weak until the RFRA.

Certain Supreme Court decisions led to the RFRA and helped shape its boundaries. Let’s examine some of the most important ones.

Sherbert vs. Verner (1963)

Sherbert v. Verner was a major turning point for religious freedom. The 1963 case centered on Adell Sherbert, who lost her job after refusing to work on her Sabbath. The state denied her unemployment benefits based on this refusal. Sherbert sued, claiming the denial violated her First Amendment Free Exercise rights.

The Court agreed and established what came to be known as the Sherbert test. It held that when the government substantially burdens a person’s religious exercise, it must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means. Though the Sherbert test reflects strict scrutiny, the Court didn’t reference it as such since the standard was still developing as a formal doctrine at the time.

Regardless, the ruling made it harder for the government to restrict religious exercise. It remained the standard in Free Exercise Clause cases for decades.

Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972)

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court affirmed Sherbert. This case involved a group of Amish parents who challenged the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s compulsory education law, which required all children in the state to attend school until age 16. The families claimed sending their children to high school conflicted with their religious beliefs and way of life.

Applying the Sherbert test, the Court agreed. It found that Wisconsin’s interest in universal education didn’t adequately justify forcing the children to attend two extra years of school. The Court explained that the law burdened the families’ religious exercise and that the state could have achieved its goals in a less restrictive way.

The decision strengthened the Sherbert framework. It showed that the Court was willing to exempt parties on religious grounds from applicable laws when the government could not meet the demanding standard.

Employment Division vs. Smith (1990)

In 1990, the Court dramatically changed course in Employment Division v. Smith. The case involved two Native American men who used peyote in a religious ceremony. They were fired for violating an Oregon state law banning the use of the drug. This violation also disqualified them from receiving unemployment benefits, which the state then denied. They sued, arguing that this denial violated their free exercise rights.

The Court disagreed. It said that free exercise doesn’t require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws. The government doesn’t have to justify burdens on religious exercise if they’re created by neutral laws that apply to everyone equally. In other words, a neutral rule of general applicability doesn’t trigger strict scrutiny, or any heightened review under the Free Exercise Clause, even when it burdens religious practice.

The Smith ruling drew widespread criticism. Opponents included legislators and a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties groups. They saw the decision as sharply weakening constitutional protections for religious practice. Regardless, Smith remained the governing rule for free exercise challenges to neutral, generally applicable laws.

Passage of the RFRA and Further Developments

In 1993, Congress responded to the Smith decision by passing the RFRA. It didn’t overrule Smith or change constitutional doctrine, but it did create a statutory cause of action requiring strict scrutiny as the standard in free exercise cases. The RFRA applied to all levels of government until the Supreme Court narrowed its scope four years later.

City of Boerne vs. Flores (1997)

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court held that Congress can’t impose the RFRA on state and local governments. Doing so exceeded Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s ruling limited the RFRA’s reach to the federal government and remains fully controlling today.

After Boerne struck down state-level application of the RFRA, many states enacted their own RFRA-style laws or constitutional amendments to protect religious exercise from state and local government burdens. Texas, Florida, and Illinois were some of the first states to pass “state RFRAs” in the late 1990s, with others soon following. As of 2026, about half of the states have implemented protections for religious exercise similar to the federal RFRA.

RLUIPA (2000)

After Boerne limited the RFRA to the federal government, the law no longer reached state prisons or local zoning boards. Congress saw this gap as a problem because people in these two settings faced some of the most serious burdens on religion. It passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000 to address the issue. This federal law restored strict scrutiny for religious exercise claims in two specific areas:

• Land‑use regulation
• Prisoner rights

This meant that federal, state, and local governments can’t substantially burden religious exercise in these domains without satisfying strict scrutiny.

Congress tied the law to its well-established powers under the commerce and spending clauses. As such, it has survived several challenges of overreach.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006)

In 2006, the Supreme Court faced its first major RFRA case after Boerne. The Gonzales case involved a small religious organization that used a tea called hoasca in its ceremonies. Hoasca contains DMT, a substance banned by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

After federal agents seized a shipment of the church’s ceremonial tea, the government told the church it could neither import nor use the tea. The church sued, claiming the tea was essential to its ceremonies and that the ban placed a substantial burden on its religious practice. The government argued that it had a compelling interest in enforcing the law uniformly, with no exceptions.

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the church. It explained that the government can’t rely on broad, general claims about drug enforcement. Rather, it had to show a compelling interest as applied to this specific religious practice and that no less restrictive alternative existed. The government offered no specific evidence that the church’s sacramental use of the tea posed a threat to its interests, so the RFRA required the government to grant the church a religious exception.

The decision highlighted that RFRA requires case‑by‑case, evidence-based justification, not blanket assertions. It also illustrated how the RFRA can override even strong federal regulatory schemes.

Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)

In 2014, the Supreme Court expanded the types of parties who could claim protection under the RFRA. Before Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the RFRA had mainly been used by individuals and religious organizations, not businesses. In this case, Hobby Lobby’s owners used the RFRA to challenge a federal rule.

They objected to an Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives in their health care plans. The owners claimed some of those methods of contraception violated their religious beliefs.

Ultimately, the Court said that closely held companies, like family-owned businesses, qualified as persons protected by the RFRA. While it agreed that the government’s interest in expanding access to contraception was important, the Court ruled that the ACA rule still failed RFRA.

The government placed a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise, but it hadn’t used the least restrictive means. The ruling concluded that there were less restrictive ways to provide this access without forcing these companies to violate their beliefs. This decision expanded RFRA protections to some businesses.

Tanzin vs. Tanvir (2020)

The Court later resolved some long-standing uncertainty about RFRA remedies in Tanzin v. Tanvir. The 2020 case centered around three Muslim men who refused, for religious reasons, to become FBI informants in their faith communities. Shortly thereafter, they were added to the No‑Fly List.

The men sued under the RFRA, arguing that the FBI’s retaliation substantially burdened their religious exercise. The government later removed them from the list, eliminating the need for an injunction. However, the question remained as to whether the men could pursue money damages.

The RFRA itself is silent on remedies. It says only that a person may obtain “appropriate relief.” Not surprisingly, courts interpreted this differently over the years.

The Tanvir Court, however, settled the question. It unanimously held that “appropriate relief” under the RFRA includes money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. So, the Tanvir plaintiffs could continue their claims even though the injunction was no longer needed. The ruling clarified that people can seek damages from federal officials under the RFRA.

COVID‑19 Vaccine Mandates

From 2021 to 2024, RFRA claims featured prominently in lower court cases. In large part, these claims dealt with challenges to federal COVID‑19 vaccine mandates. During the pandemic, service members, federal employees, and others used RFRA to argue that vaccine rules placed a substantial burden on their religious exercise.

Many plaintiffs said agencies created exemption systems that largely excluded religious requests. Others argued that the government had less restrictive ways to protect public health without forcing them to violate their beliefs.

Ultimately, courts reached mixed results. Some judges found that agencies acted improperly under the RFRA. Others dismissed cases once the mandates were withdrawn or changed. As for the Supreme Court, it didn’t weigh in on any of these cases. Dynamic policies mooted many disputes, with no clear conflict emerging among the lower courts.

How the RFRA Works in Practice

To understand the RFRA’s real impact, it helps to see how the statute functions in actual disputes. The RFRA isn’t just a statement of values, but also a powerful legal tool. Parties can use it to challenge federal laws or to defend themselves when federal rules conflict with their religious exercise.

Under the RFRA framework, claims follow a two‑step process. First, the claimant must show, by a preponderance of evidence, a substantial burden on their sincere religious practices. Once they do, the burden shifts to the government, which must then prove, also by a preponderance of evidence, that the challenged action satisfies strict scrutiny.

The preponderance of evidence standard means the parties must show that it’s more likely than not that their claims are true. Let’s break down this process for offensive and defensive postures.

Using RFRA as a Plaintiff

A party can file a lawsuit claiming that a federal law or federal government action substantially burdens their religious exercise. They must do so by showing that their religious belief is sincere and that the burden is significant. Once they do, the burden shifts to the government to prove that it has a compelling governmental interest and is using the least restrictive means.

Courts can grant exemptions, block enforcement, or provide other relief.

Using RFRA as a Defense

A party can also use the RFRA as a defense when the federal government takes action against someone. For example, let’s say the TSA penalizes someone for refusing to show their face during an identity verification step. The traveler may raise a RFRA defense if their religious beliefs required them to keep their face covered in public.

Limitations of RFRA

In discussions related to the RFRA and its versatility, it’s important to remember some of its main limitations:

• It applies only to the federal government
• It doesn’t protect against lawsuits between private parties
• A person must show a substantial burden on sincerely held religious beliefs
• The government can still win if it meets strict scrutiny
• RFRA cannot override the Constitution or change the rules on the establishment of religion

Together, these limits outline the boundaries of RFRA’s otherwise wide federal reach.

Legal Guidance 

If you suspect the government of violating your free exercise rights, speak with an attorney. State, federal, and constitutional religious protections can create a confusing legal landscape. A qualified civil rights lawyer licensed in your state can help you make sense of the overlapping rules. More importantly, they can help you understand the options and remedies available to you under applicable law.

Identifying an attorney you can trust who also has the qualifications you seek can be overwhelming. Because this is a common difficulty, FindLaw has made its directory of civil rights attorneys free to the public. After selecting your location, you can view credentials, ratings, and other information about experts in your area, including those who offer free consultations. Look for someone with experience in cases like yours, and arrange a meeting.

Our beliefs about religion usually reflect our most deeply held convictions. Take the first step in ensuring their protection.