Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.302 (2026)

Religious freedom restoration act

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1.302. Religious freedom restoration act. — 1. A governmental authority may not restrict a person's free exercise of religion, unless:

(1) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability, and does not discriminate against religion, or among religions; and

(2) The governmental authority demonstrates that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest, and is not unduly restrictive considering the relevant circumstances.

2. As used in this section, "exercise of religion" shall be defined as an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

3. As used in this section "demonstrates" means meets the burden of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

--------

(L. 2003 S.B. 12)

(2018) As applied to plaintiffs, city ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on person's reproductive health decisions or pregnancy violated section and the First Amendment's right to expressive association, and the city failed to show that ordinance furthered a compelling government interest or was not unduly restrictive. Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, 349 F.Supp.3d 805 (E.D.Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case: Doe v. Greitens, 530 S.W.3d 571 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doe v. Greitens, 530 S.W.3d 571 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “issing with prejudice her second amended petition against the governor, attorney general, members of the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (Government Respondents), and two John Does, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of parts of Missouri’s Informed Consent…”

Our Lady's Inn v. City of St. Louis, 349 F. Supp. 3d 805 (E.D. Mo. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Missouri Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 1.302 ("Missouri RFRA"), provides that: 1.”

Abundant Life Baptist Church of Lee's Summit, Missouri v. Jackson Cnty., Missouri (W.D. Mo. 2021). · cites it 5× “§2000cc), (VI) violates RLUIPA’s Equal Terms Provision, (VII) violates RLUIPA’s Unreasonable Limitations Provision, (VIII) violates Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (§ 1.302, RSMo.) (“RFRA”), (IX) violates the Missouri Constitution, Article I, Sections 2, 5, 9, and…”

Phelps-roper v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 782 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D. Mo. 2011). · cites it 2× “50 impermissibly restricts their rights under the First Amendment and violates Missouri's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 1.302. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, issuance of preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining enforcement of § 131.”

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.