Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

Long title	An Act to protect the free exercise of religion.
Acronyms (colloquial)	RFRA
Enacted by	the 103rd United States Congress
Effective	November 16, 1993
Citations
Public law	103-141
Statutes at Large	107 Stat. 1488
Codification
Titles amended	42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare
U.S.C. sections created	42 U.S.C. ch. 21B § 2000bb et seq.
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 1308 by Chuck Schumer (D–NY) on March 11, 1993 Committee consideration by House Judiciary, Senate Judiciary Passed the House on May 11, 1993 (passed voice vote) Passed the Senate on October 27, 1993 (97–3, Roll call vote 331, via Senate.gov, in lieu of S. 578) with amendment House agreed to Senate amendment on November 3, 1993 (without objection) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 16, 1993
United States Supreme Court cases
City of Boerne v. Flores 521 U.S. 507 (1997) Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal 546 U.S. 418 (2006) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014) Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71, 592 U.S. ___ (2020)

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA, pronounced "rifra"^[1]), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."^[2] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D–NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage^[3]—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The law was passed in response to the United States Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that "neutral laws of general applicability" that burden the free exercise of religion do not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. RFRA requires that strict scrutiny be applied to any law that burdens religious freedom, providing that such a law may only be justified if it is the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling government interest.

While RFRA initially applied to both state and federal laws, its application to state governments was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014). In response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty-one individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.^[4]