Meta Description: Understand the foundational US law on religious liberty. This post examines the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, the critical impact of Employment Division v. Smith, and the legislative response provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), detailing the current legal standards protecting faith.
The question of how to balance government authority with individual religious conscience lies at the heart of American constitutional law. The intersection of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the federal statute known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) defines the modern landscape of religious liberty in the United States. Navigating this area requires an understanding of a landmark Supreme Court shift and the legislative pushback that followed.
The Constitutional Foundation: The Free Exercise Clause
The First Amendment famously declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. This second portion, the Free Exercise Clause, protects a citizen’s right to practice their religion as they choose. Historically, the Supreme Court’s approach to reviewing government actions that burdened religious practice went through a major transformation.
The Shift: From Compelling Interest to Neutrality
For decades, the standard for assessing laws that burdened religious exercise was the strict scrutiny test, established in cases like Sherbert v. Verner (1963). Under this high standard, the government had to demonstrate that the burden was necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and that no less restrictive means existed.
Case Spotlight: Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
This case marked a profound change. The Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability”. Under this new standard, if a law did not specifically target religious practice and applied equally to everyone, it was constitutional even if it incidentally burdened religious exercise. This decision significantly lowered the level of protection for religious observers seeking exemptions from neutral laws.
The Legislative Response: Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
The Smith decision was highly controversial, leading Congress to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 to statutory overturn the ruling and “restore” the pre-Smith strict scrutiny standard.
RFRA’s Strict Scrutiny Standard
RFRA prohibits the federal government from “substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion” even if the burden results from a generally applicable rule. To justify such a burden, the government must prove two things:
- Compelling Governmental Interest: The burden must be in furtherance of a governmental interest of the highest order.
- Least Restrictive Means: The application of the burden to the person must be the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
This two-part test sets a high bar for the government to meet and serves as a powerful statutory defense for individuals and organizations.
RFRA’s Reach and Key Legal Precedents
While Congress initially intended for RFRA to apply to all levels of government, the Supreme Court soon narrowed its scope.
Limits on State and Local Government
In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment when it attempted to apply RFRA to state and local governments. Consequently, the federal RFRA today only applies to the federal government and its agencies. This has led many states to enact their own “State RFRAs” to provide similar protections against state and local government actions.
Application to For-Profit Businesses
One of the most widely discussed RFRA cases is Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014).
Legal Case Example: Hobby Lobby
The Court ruled that the protections of the federal RFRA extend to closely held, for-profit corporations. The court held that requiring the corporation to provide employees with contraception coverage that violated the owners’ sincere religious beliefs was an unconstitutional, substantial burden under RFRA. This established that the religious liberty of a company’s owners is protected under the statute.
Summary: Navigating Religious Liberty Protections
For any individual or organization whose religious practice is challenged by a government action, the legal analysis is complex and depends heavily on which sovereign (federal, state, or local) is imposing the rule.
Key Takeaways:
- The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is the constitutional baseline, generally allowing a neutral, generally applicable law to stand, even if it burdens religion (the Smith rule).
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a powerful federal statute that applies the strict scrutiny standard to all federal government actions that substantially burden religious exercise.
- The strict scrutiny standard requires the federal government to prove a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to justify any substantial burden on religion.
- For actions by state or local governments, a party must typically rely on a specific State RFRA or challenge the law directly under the First Amendment if it is not “neutral and generally applicable”.
- Recent case law has affirmed that RFRA’s protections apply broadly to individuals, religious organizations, and even closely held for-profit companies.
Expert Summary Card
The legal relationship between government action and religious practice is a continuous point of constitutional debate. While the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause provides the core protection, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides a significant statutory layer of protection, particularly at the federal level, by compelling the government to meet the high bar of the strict scrutiny test when religious liberty is substantially burdened.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the primary difference between the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA?
A: The Free Exercise Clause is the constitutional protection, which, following the Smith decision, generally permits neutral, generally applicable laws even if they burden religion. RFRA is a federal statute that raises the standard back to strict scrutiny for federal government actions, meaning the government must show a compelling interest and the least restrictive means.
Q: Does RFRA apply to state and local governments?
A: No. The Supreme Court limited the federal RFRA to applying only against the federal government in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). However, many states have passed their own versions, known as “State RFRAs”.
Q: What constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RFRA?
A: While the statute does not define it, case law suggests a substantial burden exists when an individual or organization is forced to choose between following their sincere religious beliefs and receiving a governmental benefit, or when they are compelled to violate their faith.
Q: Can a for-profit business assert a claim under RFRA?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) confirmed that closely held, for-profit corporations are considered “persons” under RFRA, and their owners can assert the statute’s protections against federal mandates.
Q: What is the “compelling governmental interest” test?
A: It is the first prong of the strict scrutiny test. The government must show that its action that substantially burdens religious exercise is necessary to promote a governmental interest of the highest order, such as protecting public health or safety.
Disclaimer: This content is generated by an AI model and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on your circumstances under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA, you must consult with a qualified legal expert.
Navigating the complex interplay between the Free Exercise Clause and RFRA is crucial for understanding the state of religious liberty today. For personalized guidance on federal or state religious accommodation claims, seeking counsel from a qualified legal expert is the essential next step.
Free Exercise Clause, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, First Amendment, religious freedom, strict scrutiny, compelling governmental interest, Employment Division v. Smith, Hobby Lobby, neutral laws of general applicability, substantial burden, least restrictive means, religious liberty, constitutional law, free exercise jurisprudence, City of Boerne v. Flores, religious accommodation
Please consult a qualified legal professional for any specific legal matters.