Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Test, Claims, and Remedies

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993, prohibits the federal government from placing a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise unless it can prove the burden serves a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means available. Congress enacted the law in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which had lowered the constitutional bar for laws that interfered with religious practice. RFRA restored the strict scrutiny standard that free exercise claims had previously received and gave individuals a direct cause of action against federal overreach.

What RFRA Covers and What It Doesn’t

RFRA reaches only the federal government. The statute defines “government” to include every branch, department, agency, and official of the United States, along with anyone else acting under federal authority. That sweep covers regulatory agencies, federal prison wardens, military commanders, and any other federal actor. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories also count.¹

The federal-only limit is not a technicality. Congress originally wrote RFRA to reach state and local governments too, but the Supreme Court struck down that application in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), holding that Congress had exceeded its enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment.² If a city zoning board blocks your congregation or a state agency imposes a rule that conflicts with your practice, the federal RFRA does not help. There are separate laws for some of those situations, discussed at the end.

RFRA also does not regulate private employers, landlords, or other private actors. If a private company fires you over a religious practice, your remedies come from Title VII or state law. RFRA is a check on federal government power, not a general religious liberty guarantee.

The Two-Step Test

RFRA’s core mechanism is a two-step framework that courts apply whenever someone claims the federal government has burdened their religious practice. The statute says the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” unless it clears both parts of a strict test.³ The phrase “general applicability” matters. Even a neutral law that applies to everyone can trigger RFRA if it substantially burdens someone’s religious exercise.

Step One: Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise

The person bringing the claim goes first. You must show that a federal law, regulation, or official action puts real pressure on your religious exercise. A substantial burden is more than a minor inconvenience. It typically involves penalties, loss of government benefits, or a forced choice between following the law and following your faith. Whether a burden qualifies as “substantial” is ultimately a legal question for the court, not something a claimant can simply assert.

The definition of “exercise of religion” is deliberately broad. After Congress amended RFRA through the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000, the term covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Courts are prohibited from asking whether a particular practice sits at the center of someone’s theology. If the practice is religious and sincerely held, it qualifies.

Step Two: Compelling Interest and Least Restrictive Means

Once the claimant establishes a substantial burden, the entire weight of proof shifts to the government. It must show two things. First, the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest, meaning something of the highest order like public safety or preventing serious harm, not just any legitimate goal. Second, the government must prove it chose the least restrictive means available to achieve that interest.³ If a less burdensome approach could accomplish the same goal, the government loses.

The Supreme Court sharpened this analysis in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita (2006). The government had argued that the Controlled Substances Act’s scheduling system left no room for religious exceptions. The Court rejected the categorical argument, noting that Congress itself had already carved out a regulatory exemption for the sacramental use of peyote. The existence of that exemption proved accommodations were possible, and the government had to justify refusing this specific one to this specific group.⁴ Courts also look at whether the government has already granted similar exemptions to secular groups. Inconsistency undercuts any claim that the interest is truly compelling.

How Courts Judge Whether a Belief Is Sincere

Courts do not decide whether a religious belief is correct, logical, or consistent with mainstream theology. What they do evaluate is whether the belief is sincerely held. This is the one place where the government can push back on the religious dimension of a claim.

The claimant’s own testimony carries significant weight. Beyond that, courts consider whether the person’s conduct has been consistent with the claimed belief over time, whether family or fellow congregants corroborate the practice, and whether there are physical signs of observance. Inconsistencies can hurt. If someone previously offered a purely secular reason for the same conduct, or accepted the very regulation they now challenge on religious grounds, that history matters. Timing matters too. A claim filed immediately after a regulation takes effect looks different from one raised only after the claimant faces unrelated legal trouble.

Who Can Bring a RFRA Claim

RFRA protects “persons,” and courts have read that term broadly. Any individual in the United States whose religious exercise is burdened by federal action can file, regardless of whether they belong to an organized religion. A person following a lesser-known spiritual tradition has the same standing as a member of a major denomination, so long as the beliefs are sincerely held.

Religious organizations — churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, religious schools, and faith-based charities — regularly invoke RFRA when federal regulations interfere with how they operate, hire, or deliver services. The organization’s religious identity is enough; it does not need to prove each member’s individual beliefs.

The biggest expansion of eligible claimants came in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), where the Supreme Court held that closely held for-profit corporations qualify as “persons” under RFRA. The Court relied on the Dictionary Act, which defines “person” to include corporations alongside individuals. The owners of a craft supply chain had objected to an Affordable Care Act regulation requiring employer health plans to cover certain contraceptives, and the Court found that the government had failed the least restrictive means test because it had already created an accommodation for religious nonprofits that could have been extended to closely held for-profits.⁵ The decision does not extend to publicly traded corporations, and the owners of a closely held company still have to demonstrate sincere religious beliefs that the business reflects.

Using RFRA: Lawsuit or Defense

The statute works in two directions. A person can affirmatively file a lawsuit challenging a federal regulation or policy that burdens religious practice. Someone facing a federal enforcement action, including a criminal prosecution, can raise RFRA as a defense.³ The statute expressly permits a person to “assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.”

RFRA applies to the full range of federal regulation, not just criminal law. Challenges have involved federal employment rules, immigration policies, military grooming standards, controlled substances, and conditions in federal prisons. The framework is the same regardless of context: substantial burden on sincere religious exercise, then the government’s turn to prove compelling interest and least restrictive means.

What You Can Win

When a court finds a RFRA violation, the statute authorizes “appropriate relief against a government.”³ That open-ended phrase gives courts flexibility, and successful claimants can pursue several kinds of relief.

Injunctions

The most common remedy is an injunction: a court order directing the government to stop enforcing the offending rule against the claimant. To get a preliminary injunction before trial, you must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without the order, a favorable balance of harms, and that the public interest supports the injunction. Courts weigh these factors on a sliding scale — the stronger the merits, the less irreparable harm needs to be shown.

Money Damages

The Supreme Court confirmed in Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) that RFRA permits money damages against federal officials sued in their individual capacities. The Court reasoned that “appropriate relief” has historically included damages, and that the statute’s definition of “government” covers officials personally.⁶ This matters because injunctions alone cannot compensate someone who has already suffered lost wages, confiscated property, or other tangible harm. Federal officials can still assert qualified immunity, which protects them unless their conduct violated clearly established law.

Attorney Fees

Winning a RFRA case can entitle you to recover attorney fees. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), a court may award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in any action to enforce RFRA.⁷ Fee-shifting matters because religious liberty litigation can drag on for years and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Without it, most individuals and small religious organizations could not afford to sue the federal government.

Deadline to File

RFRA does not specify its own statute of limitations. Because Congress enacted the law after December 1, 1990, the federal catch-all provision applies, giving you four years from the date the cause of action accrues to file suit.⁸ The clock generally starts when you know, or should know, that the government has substantially burdened your religious exercise. Missing that window forfeits your right to sue affirmatively, though raising RFRA as a defense to a government enforcement action may follow different timing rules depending on the proceeding.

When RFRA Doesn’t Apply: State and Local Government

Because the federal RFRA reaches only federal action, Congress and many states have filled parts of the gap. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed in 2000, applies the same compelling interest and least restrictive means test to two specific areas of state and local action: zoning and land-use decisions affecting religious assemblies, and rules governing people confined in institutions like prisons.⁹ Roughly 30 states have also enacted their own religious freedom restoration statutes that generally mirror the federal framework and cover the broader range of state and local government activity. In states without their own RFRA, religious liberty claims against state or local action depend on the state constitution’s free exercise protections, which vary and often apply a lower standard than strict scrutiny. If your burden comes from a state or local government, that patchwork — not the federal RFRA — is where your analysis starts.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000bb-2 – Definitions
2
Justia. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 US 507 (1997)
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000bb-1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
4
Justia. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 US 418 (2006)
5
Justia. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 573 US 682 (2014)
6
Justia. Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 US ___ (2020)
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1988 – Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1658 – Time Limitations on the Commencement of Civil Actions Arising Under Acts of Congress
9
U.S. Department of Justice. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act