Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01 (2026)

Free exercise of religion protected

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.

B. Except as provided in subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

C. Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is both:

1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs.

E. In this section, the term substantially burden is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial, technical or de minimis infractions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 16× “CONCLUSION ¶ 24 Although religious exercise may provide a valid defense under A.R.S. § 41-1493.01, in the circumstances of this ease, Hardesty’s defense fails as a matter of law.”
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “¶ 26 To that end, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 provides: A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
Seidman v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 327 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “The Plaintiffs have failed to show a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion as required by A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. 3 Therefore, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiffs’ Second Claim and Seventh Claims for relief (free exercise).”
Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 615 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 2× “Similarly, the City has not violated the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. The language of the Arizona statute is slightly different than RLUIPA, but it still requires that the challenged law impose a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of…”
Anthony Merrick v. Inmate Legal Servs., 650 F. App'x 333 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 2000cc-l(a); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1493.01(B). He expressly pleaded that his religion required unmonitored, unrecorded confessions with his own- clergy and that the jail’s policy prevented this practice.”
Shaykh Muhammad Al Saud v. Pannan Days, 36 F.4th 949 (9th Cir. 2022). “, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01 . The district court issued a judgment on the pleadings for defendants, concluding that the infringement on Al Saud’s religious practice was justified because the state’s action was narrowly…”
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix, 418 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 (2017); see also State v.”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 21× “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 21× “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Thoms v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(A). If the loss of a federal 16 constitutional right amounts to irreparable injury, so too must the loss of a fundamental 17 right under state law.”
Henry v. Somerton, City of (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(D). It can certainly be said that the City 18 “burdened” Plaintiff by imposing its CUP requirement on them, right up until the criminal 19 prosecution was dismissed on November 7, 2017.”
Merrick v. Penzone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “¶5 Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”) — A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 — was enacted in 1999 “to protect Arizona citizens’ right to exercise their religious beliefs free from undue governmental interference.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(0) — 2 cases
State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). “CONCLUSION ¶ 24 Although religious exercise may provide a valid defense under A.R.S. § 41-1493.01, in the circumstances of this ease, Hardesty’s defense fails as a matter of law.”
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 26 To that end, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 provides: A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(A) — 4 cases
State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). “CONCLUSION ¶ 24 Although religious exercise may provide a valid defense under A.R.S. § 41-1493.01, in the circumstances of this ease, Hardesty’s defense fails as a matter of law.”
Merrick v. Penzone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “¶5 Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”) — A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 — was enacted in 1999 “to protect Arizona citizens’ right to exercise their religious beliefs free from undue governmental interference.”
State v. Elise (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Thoms v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. 2021). “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(A). If the loss of a federal 16 constitutional right amounts to irreparable injury, so too must the loss of a fundamental 17 right under state law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(B) — 5 cases
Seidman v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 327 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Ariz. 2004). “The Plaintiffs have failed to show a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion as required by A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. 3 Therefore, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the Defendant on the Plaintiffs’ Second Claim and Seventh Claims for relief (free exercise).”
Anthony Merrick v. Inmate Legal Servs., 650 F. App'x 333 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 2000cc-l(a); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 41-1493.01(B). He expressly pleaded that his religion required unmonitored, unrecorded confessions with his own- clergy and that the jail’s policy prevented this practice.”
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix, 418 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 (2017); see also State v.”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(C) — 5 cases
State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). “CONCLUSION ¶ 24 Although religious exercise may provide a valid defense under A.R.S. § 41-1493.01, in the circumstances of this ease, Hardesty’s defense fails as a matter of law.”
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix, 418 P.3d 426 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 (2017); see also State v.”
Thoms v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. 2021). “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(A). If the loss of a federal 16 constitutional right amounts to irreparable injury, so too must the loss of a fundamental 17 right under state law.”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(C)(1) — 2 cases
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 26 To that end, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 provides: A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(D) — 7 cases
State v. Hardesty, 214 P.3d 1004 (Ariz. 2009). “CONCLUSION ¶ 24 Although religious exercise may provide a valid defense under A.R.S. § 41-1493.01, in the circumstances of this ease, Hardesty’s defense fails as a matter of law.”
State v. Hardesty, 204 P.3d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 26 To that end, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01 provides: A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially neutral.”
Henry v. Somerton, City of (D. Ariz. 2021). “” A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(D). It can certainly be said that the City 18 “burdened” Plaintiff by imposing its CUP requirement on them, right up until the criminal 19 prosecution was dismissed on November 7, 2017.”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.01(E) — 4 cases
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix (Ariz. 2019). “Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. ¶3 Our holding is limited to Plaintiffs’…”
Thoms v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (D. Ariz. 2021). “A.R.S. § 41-1493.01(A). If the loss of a federal 16 constitutional right amounts to irreparable injury, so too must the loss of a fundamental 17 right under state law.”
Peace v. Peace (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.