The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993

Exploring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 is a significant federal law designed to safeguard individuals' rights to practice their religion without undue interference from the government. This legislation was Congress's reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which was perceived to diminish religious freedoms by allowing states to enforce regulations that incidentally burdened religious practices. The RFRA restored the 'strict scrutiny' test, mandating that the government must demonstrate that a law imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Historical Background and Enactment of the RFRA

The RFRA emerged from the aftermath of the Employment Division v. Smith decision, where the Supreme Court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to two Native American men who had been fired for using peyote, a controlled substance, as part of their religious ceremonies. In response, Congress passed the RFRA in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support, aiming to reaffirm and protect religious liberty by requiring higher justification for laws that impinge upon religious practices. The act represented a legislative commitment to the preservation of religious freedom, a fundamental principle in American history.

Federal Reach and Constraints of the RFRA

The RFRA was originally intended to apply to both federal and state governments. However, its reach was curtailed to federal actions by the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), which held that the RFRA exceeded Congress's power when applied to the states. This led to a proliferation of state-level RFRAs to fill the gap left by the federal law. At the federal level, the RFRA remains a vital tool for adjudicating conflicts between religious freedom and governmental policies, as evidenced by cases such as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), where the RFRA was central to the decision.

State Reactions and Variations of the RFRA

Following the City of Boerne ruling, numerous states enacted their own versions of the RFRA, colloquially known as 'mini RFRAs,' to ensure that religious freedoms were not infringed upon by state legislation. These state RFRAs generally incorporate the same 'strict scrutiny' standard as the federal RFRA for laws that substantially burden religious exercise. As of now, 21 states have enacted RFRAs, and an additional 10 states have either constitutional amendments or judicial precedents that provide similar religious freedom protections, demonstrating the diverse approaches to religious liberty across the United States.

Varied Applications and Consequences of State RFRAs

The enactment and interpretation of state RFRAs have resulted in a diverse array of legal standards and protections for religious freedom within the United States. For instance, Texas applies the 'strict scrutiny' standard to all claims of free exercise of religion, while Connecticut's provisions are more closely aligned with federal constitutional standards. These variations in state RFRAs have been applied to a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from employment discrimination to access to healthcare services, highlighting the ongoing negotiation between religious liberty and other societal interests.

The Ongoing Importance of the RFRA

The RFRA continues to be a fundamental aspect of religious liberty in the United States, reflecting the nation's commitment to the protection of individual rights and the challenge of balancing these rights with the public interest. The act's evolution, from the urgency of its initial passage to its enduring impact on federal and state legal systems, exemplifies its pivotal role in the ongoing discourse surrounding the extent and limits of religious freedom within American jurisprudence.