The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Most people believe the First Amendment prevents threats against our religious freedom. However, a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Employment Division v. Smith reduced the level of protection historically afforded religious liberty. In 1993, The U.S. Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to restore a higher threshold of federal protection.
The measure had bipartisan support, passing the Senate by a vote of 97-3, and the House on a voice vote with no opposition.
Thanks to this new law, Americans were once again protected against infringements of religious liberty arising from what the Supreme Court called “neutral laws of general applicability.”
What are some examples of “neutral laws of general applicability?” In addition to the country’s drug laws that played such a prominent role in the Smith case, there are, for example, several such laws currently impacting, or on a collision course with, religious freedom: The HHS mandate, which forces employers to violate their religious conscience, numerous state and federal “non-discrimination” laws, and state and federal licensing laws for various professions. Think of pharmacists being told they must provide “all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs,” including possible abortion-causing drugs. Think of state hospitals that require all nursing staff to assist in all medical procedures — including abortions.
You get the picture.
It’s easy to see how a government entity’s actions, although draped in neutral, non-religious terms, can quickly create an unconscionable religious burden. RFRA was designed to make sure that there was a remedy in individual cases where religious conscience was threatened.
However, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA did not apply to actions by state governments because Congress had mistakenly relied on the wrong constitutional provision to justify it. While still binding against the federal government, RFRA could no longer protect citizens from their own state’s religious infringements caused by state-level “neutral laws of general applicability.”
Congress attempted to fix the drafting problem; however, by 1999, socially liberal groups became concerned that RFRA might negatively impact some of their favored issues, such as government-compelled normalization of homosexual behavior, as well as the expansion of abortion-on-demand. The original bipartisan coalition splintered, the political parties in Congress chose sides, and the final product was a scaled-down religious freedom law aimed only at zoning laws and prisoner rights.
But citizens were not left without recourse due to Congress’ failure to “fix” RFRA’s inapplicability to state government actions. To date, about half the states have protected their citizens with their own RFRA laws or through state court decisions that reject the applicability of the federal Smith ruling to their own state.
RFRA is, according to the country’s leading religious liberty experts, “the most important congressional action with respect to religion since the First Congress proposed the First Amendment.” Its ultimate effectiveness is being tested at the moment in various venues. Although religious freedom in New Mexico — and a state version of RFRA — were recently dealt a blow at the hands of that state’s supreme court, the federal law is possibly heading for the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2014, as it relates to the HHS mandate cases, for an important ruling on the scope of its protections for religious-minded employers.
For the sake of the future of religious freedom in America, let’s pray for success in those cases.
Next In This Series: The Religious Freedom ‘Firestorm’
’Tis the season for holiday reading!
Check out Daily Citizen’s cheery winter reads.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Bruce Hausknecht, J.D., is an attorney who serves as Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst. He is responsible for research and analysis of legal and judicial issues related to Christians and the institution of the family, including First Amendment freedom of religion and free speech issues, judicial activism, marriage, homosexuality and pro-life matters. He also tracks legislation and laws affecting these issues. Prior to joining Focus in 2004, Hausknecht practiced law for 17 years in construction litigation and as an associate general counsel for a large ministry in Virginia. He was also an associate pastor at a church in Colorado Springs for seven years, primarily in worship music ministry. Hausknecht has provided legal analysis and commentary for top media outlets including CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS Radio, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe and BBC radio. He’s also a regular contributor to The Daily Citizen. He earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law. Hausknecht has been married since 1981 and has three adult children, as well as three adorable grandkids. In his free time, Hausknecht loves getting creative with his camera and capturing stunning photographs of his adopted state of Colorado.
Related Posts

JD Vance: ‘You Shouldn’t Have to Leave Your Faith at the Door’
February 5, 2025

Appeals Court Favors Louisiana Ten Commandments Law for Now
November 18, 2024

Christian Woman Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccine Wins $12 Million
November 13, 2024