Religious Freedom Acts by State

Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to protect religious liberties that had been weakened by an earlier Supreme Court decision. But the Supreme Court later decided it applied only to federal actions that restrict a person’s exercise of religion. Some states responded by passing their own RFRA-like state laws, designed to fill the gap created by this limitation.

These state RFRAs protect religious freedom by requiring state and local actions that burden people’s religious exercise to satisfy the same high standard. But not all states have an RFRA-type statute. This means that protections for your religious freedom very much depend on your location. Understanding how the laws in your state operate is critical to exercising your constitutional rights.

This guide explores the origins of state-level RFRAs and legislative trends. We cover key U.S. Supreme Court cases that have shaped the landscape for religious protections at the state level. And we’ll outline each state’s approach and the different types of protections.

If your religious freedoms are burdened at any level, consider touching base with a lawyer. A civil rights or constitutional law attorney who’s licensed in your state can help you understand your options under state and federal law. That way, you can make informed decisions about the best way to proceed.

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

What Are State RFRAs?

State religious freedom restoration acts are laws that protect the free exercise of religion from government interference. A state RFRA prevents state and local governments from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. This applies “strict scrutiny” – the highest level of judicial review – to laws and government actions that may restrict religious practices.

If a person’s religious exercise is “substantially burdened” by state or local government action, the government must excuse the person from complying with the law unless it can show:

• A “compelling governmental interest” in enforcing the law, and
• That there is no less restrictive alternative that would accomplish its goal with less burden on religious exercise

As of 2026, just over half of the states have enacted their own state RFRAs. Some provide similar protections through their state constitutions or court decisions, and thirteen states rely solely on federal protections under the First Amendment.

How Did Religious Freedom Laws Emerge?

The roots of these laws date back to the First Amendment. Its free exercise clause protects the right to practice one’s religion without government interference. Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in different ways.

In 1963, the Court held in Sherbert v. Verner that the government must show a compelling government interest before burdening religious conduct.

But a few decades later, the Court reduced this First Amendment protection.

Employment Division vs. Smith (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith involved two Native Americans who used peyote in a religious ceremony. They were denied unemployment benefits because state law illegalized peyote.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government doesn’t need to provide religious exemptions from a law that applies to everyone equally. Even if a rule of general applicability burdens someone’s religious conduct, the Court held that exemptions aren’t required.

The decision eliminated the strong protections that strict scrutiny had provided under Sherbert. And it allowed governments to burden religious exercise through neutral, generally applicable laws.

Many religious and civil liberties groups objected to the Smith decision.

Federal RFRA

In response, Congress passed the federal RFRA to protect individuals from government infringement on their religious practices. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, it restored the earlier strict scrutiny standard for government action that substantially burdens religious exercise.

However, the Supreme Court later held in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that the RFRA‘s protections apply only to the federal government, not to state or local actions. So, the states had to decide individually whether to pass their own RFRAs in order to provide similar state-level protections.

And many did just that.

State RFRAs

A handful of states began passing their own religious freedom laws in the 1990s. Connecticut and Rhode Island were first in 1993, followed closely by Florida (1998) and Texas (1999). The trend has continued through the decades, with Wyoming most recently enacting its state RFRA in 2025.

The states’ recent adoption of these and other religious protections shows that debates about balancing religious freedom with other legal protections remain ongoing.

Important note: The presence of an RFRA does not guarantee particular outcomes in religious freedom cases. Courts must still balance religious exercise against other state interests. Different states and courts interpret these laws differently.

How State RFRAs Differ

State RFRAs share a common purpose. But they differ in several important ways that affect how courts evaluate claims. These differences shape how individuals, businesses, and religious organizations might argue that a government action places a substantial burden on their religious exercise.

Because these variations influence how disputes unfold, it is helpful to understand the main areas where state RFRAs diverge. They include:

• Application to private lawsuits: A few states, like Indiana and Arkansas, allow their RFRAs to be used in lawsuits between private parties, while most states limit RFRA claims to cases involving government action.
• Definitions of substantial burden: States use different definitions of substantial burden, with some requiring a heavy impact on religious practice and others adopting broader language that makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring claims.
• Levels of protection for different actors: Some states provide stronger protections for a religious organization, while others extend RFRA protections to individuals or even for‑profit businesses, including Christian‑owned companies.

These differences can lead to very different outcomes depending on where a dispute arises. They also help explain why religious rights and related legislation continue to evolve across the country.

State RFRA Expansions

Several states have updated or expanded their religious freedom restoration act laws in response to new cultural, legal, and political debates. These changes often reflect tensions between religious liberty claims and civil rights protections, especially in areas involving LGBTQ+ and transgender rights. Because these expansions vary widely, they have become an important part of understanding the modern RFRA landscape.

• New protections for religious objectors in health care: Some states have broadened RFRA‑style protections for medical providers who object to certain health care procedures or treatments based on religious belief.
• Expanded coverage for land use and zoning disputes: A number of states have strengthened RFRA protections for religious groups seeking to build or expand facilities, especially in land use conflicts.
• Broader application to businesses: Influenced in part by Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), some states have expanded RFRA protections to include for‑profit companies with religious objections, including objections related to contraception.

These expansions show how state RFRAs continue to shift in response to social issues and major court decisions.

Religious Freedom Protections By State

The following lists show which states have religious freedom restoration acts, which states have constitutional or judicial protections, and which states rely on federal protections only.

States With Religious Freedom Restoration Acts

Twenty-nine states have enacted their own RFRA statutes that apply strict scrutiny to state and local government actions that substantially burden religious exercise.

States with Constitutional or Judicial Protections

Some states provide heightened protections for religious freedom through their state constitutions and/or state supreme court decisions that require more than the federal baseline, including:

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Maine
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Ohio
• Washington
• Wisconsin

States Without State-Level Protections

The remaining states do not have a state RFRA or state constitutional/judicial protections that exceed the federal baseline. Religious freedom claims in these states are evaluated under the federal First Amendment standard as interpreted in Employment Division v. Smith:

• California
• Colorado
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Maryland
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• Vermont

Visit FindLaw’s Religious Discrimination section to learn more about religious freedom protections.

Getting Legal Help

While we work hard to keep our articles up to date, state laws are constantly changing. The interpretation and application of state RFRAs can vary significantly depending on the specific circumstances of your case, the language of your state’s law, and how courts in your state have interpreted it.

If you believe a state or local government action is substantially burdening your religious exercise, or if you have questions about religious freedom laws in your state, you should consult with a civil rights lawyer or constitutional law attorney. An experienced attorney can help you understand your rights under both federal and state law.

For issues involving federal government actions, see our article on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.