N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 28 / Article 22
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 28-22-3 (2026)

Religious freedom protected; exceptions.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
   A government agency shall not restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless:

   A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly
discriminate against religion or among religions; and

   B. the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling
governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest.

History: Laws 2000 (2nd S.S.), ch. 17, § 3.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Effective dates. — Laws 2000 (2nd S.S.), ch. 17 contained no effective date provision,
but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective July 3, 2000, 90 days after the
adjournment of the legislature.

The criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a
minor statutes do not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. — Where
defendant, who was the spiritual leader of a religious group that lived together, was
convicted of criminal sexual contact of a minor and of contributing to the delinquency of
a minor based on unclothed experiences with two teenage children; and defendant
claimed that because defendant believed that touching the children was a religious act,
defendant was not guilty of committing a crime and that the criminal sexual contact of a
minor statute, Section 30-9-13 NMSA 1978 and the contributing to the delinquency of a
minor statute, Section 30-6-3 NMSA 1978, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act, because the statutes are laws of general applicability that do not directly
discriminate against or among religions, the protection of minors from sexual abuse and
delinquency is a compelling governmental interest, and the statutes are the least
restrictive means of achieving the government's goal of protecting minors from sexual
abuse and delinquency, the statutes do not violate the act. State v. Bent, 2013-NMCA-
108, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013 NMSC 040 (N.M. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013 NMSC 040 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 8× “Section 28-22-3. “Free exercise of religion” is defined as “an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief.”
State v. Bent, 2013 NMCA 108 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “It Was Not Ineffective Assistance that Defendant’s Counsel Did Not Raise RFRA at Trial {28} Defendant next claims- that it constituted ineffective assistance by his counsel to fail to assert a defense based specifically on RFRA, NMSA 1978, § 28-22-3 (2000). Defendant claims that…”
Combs v. Homer-Ctr. Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “302 ; N.M. Stat. §§ 28-22-3; R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 42-80.”
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Section 28-22-3. Thus, in order to prevail on his claim that the defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Plaintiff would have had to prove that the defendants were a government agency that restricted his religion in a manner that was either not essential to…”
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012 NMCA 086 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Section 28-22-3. Elane Photography claims thatthe language of the statute authorizing a litigant to “assert [a NMRFRA] violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding” allows cases between private parties.”
State of NM ex rel Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Section 28-22-3. Thus, in order to prevail on his claim that the defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Plaintiff would have had to prove that the defendants were a government agency that restricted his religion in a manner that was either not essential to…”
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013 NMSC 40 (N.M. 2013). · cites it 4× “Section 28-22-3. “Free exercise of religion” is defined as “an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief.”
State v. Bent (N.M. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “It Was Not Ineffective Assistance that Defendant’s Counsel Did Not Raise RFRA at Trial {28} Defendant next claims that it constituted ineffective assistance by his counsel to fail to assert a defense based specifically on RFRA, NMSA 1978, § 28-22-3 (2000). Defendant claims that…”
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012 NMCA 86 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Section 28-22-3. Elane Photography claims that the language of the statute authorizing a litigant to “assert [a NMRFRA] violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding” allows cases between private parties.”
Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Peters (D.N.M. 2022). · cites it 3× “, the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act, NMSA § 28-22-3 (2013), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”
Hunnicutt, Sr. v. Peters (D.N.M. 2022). · cites it 2× “, and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“NMRFRA”), NMSA § 28-22-3 (2013). See (Doc. 1); (Doc.”
Unknown, 599 F.3d 1114. “Finally we turn to the plaintiffs’ claims under New Mexico’s RFRA, which waives the state’s immunity for suits alleging that the state “restrict[ed] a person’s free exercise of religion.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.