U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 21B— RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb

Congressional findings and declaration of purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds that—(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are—(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.(Pub. L. 103–141, § 2, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 103–141, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note below and Tables.

Constitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of this section, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 103–141, § 1, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter and amending section 1988 of this title and section 504 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees] may be cited as the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’.”

Executive DocumentsEx. Ord. No. 13798. Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty

Ex. Ord. No. 13798, May 4, 2017, 82 F.R. 21675, provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to guide the executive branch in formulating and implementing policies with implications for the religious liberty of persons and organizations in America, and to further compliance with the Constitution and with applicable statutes and Presidential Directives, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans’ first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term “adverse action” means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit.

Sec. 3. Conscience Protections with Respect to Preventive-Care Mandate. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate promulgated under section 300gg–13(a)(4) of title 42, United States Code.

Sec. 4. Religious Liberty Guidance. In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Sec. 5. Severability. If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any individual or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its other provisions to any other individuals or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Donald J. Trump.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,243 cases (258 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 26× “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). · cites it 46× “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016). · cites it 14× “1 Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the regulations’ accommodation for nonprofit organizations with a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. They claim that the…”
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “They also argue that maintaining a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives through their employer violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (“RFRA”).”
Vill. of Bensenville v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 11× “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., requires strict scrutiny of a federal agency’s approval of an airport layout plan incident to a determination of eligibility for…”
Apache Stronghold v. USA, 95 F.4th 608 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 32× “, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.”
St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “The Illinois legislature passed IRFRA in 1998 in response to both Smith and the Supreme Court's subsequent invalidation (as applied to the states) of the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. See City of Boerne v.”
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020). · cites it 4× “(a) RFRA’s text provides that persons may sue and “obtain appro- priate relief against a government,” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), includ- ing an “official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States,” §2000bb–2(1).”
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). · cites it 4× “1488 , 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb et seq. We began by noting that Congress enacted RFRA "in direct response" to our decision in Employment Div.”
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). · cites it 5× “1488 , 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq ., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the…”
Cyril Korte v. HHS, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “Center stage at this juncture is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which prohibits the federal government from placing substan- tial burdens on “a person’s exercise of religion,” id.”
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 10× “3516, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., seeking damages for their alleged illegal detention and torture at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…”
Show all 1,243 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(1) — 3 cases
Apache Stronghold v. USA, 95 F.4th 608 (9th Cir. 2024). “, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.”
Apache Stronghold v. USA (9th Cir. 2024).
Apache Stronghold v. USA (9th Cir. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(2) — 1 case
Rasul v. Rumsfeld, 433 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2006).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(4) — 3 cases
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016). “1 Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the regulations’ accommodation for nonprofit organizations with a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. They claim that the…”
the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (11th Cir. 2016).
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (11th Cir. 2016).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a) — 40 cases
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004).
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 904 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2012).
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 724 F.3d 377 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 690 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(1) — 8 cases
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020).
Yassir Fazaga v. Fbi, 916 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2019).
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
Apache Stronghold v. USA, 95 F.4th 608 (9th Cir. 2024). “, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq., are interpreted uniformly; and (2) preventing access to religious exercise is an example of substantial burden.”
Yassir Fazaga v. Fbi (9th Cir. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(2) — 21 cases
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). “1488 , 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq ., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the…”
United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
Ghailani v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2017).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(3) — 14 cases
Thai Meditation Ass'n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020).
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 38 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022).
Belgard v. State of Hawaii, 883 F. Supp. 510 (D. Haw. 1995).
Fitzgerald v. Magic Valley Evangelical Free Church, Inc. (In Re Hodge), 200 B.R. 884 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1996).
Keeler v. Mayor & City Council of Cumberland, 928 F. Supp. 591 (D. Maryland 1996).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4) — 49 cases
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2017). “They also argue that maintaining a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives through their employer violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (“RFRA”).”
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
Vill. of Bensenville v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., requires strict scrutiny of a federal agency’s approval of an airport layout plan incident to a determination of eligibility for…”
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “3516, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., seeking damages for their alleged illegal detention and torture at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(5) — 39 cases
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016). “1 Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the regulations’ accommodation for nonprofit organizations with a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. They claim that the…”
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013).
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2017). “They also argue that maintaining a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives through their employer violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (“RFRA”).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(l) — 4 cases
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004).
Keeler v. Mayor & City Council of Cumberland, 928 F. Supp. 591 (D. Maryland 1996).
Beckwith Elec. Co. v. Sebelius, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b) — 79 cases
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 867 F.3d 338 (3rd Cir. 2017). “They also argue that maintaining a health insurance plan that covers contraceptives through their employer violates their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb to 2000bb-4 (“RFRA”).”
Tanvir v. FNU Tanzin, 894 F.3d 449 (2d Cir. 2018).
United States v. Hardman, 297 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2002).
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 690 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1) — 85 cases
Vill. of Bensenville v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., requires strict scrutiny of a federal agency’s approval of an airport layout plan incident to a determination of eligibility for…”
Lindsey Hoyt v. Lane Constr. Corporati, 927 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2019).
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 38 F.4th 742 (9th Cir. 2022).
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sec'y of the U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 818 F.3d 1122 (11th Cir. 2016). “1 Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the regulations’ accommodation for nonprofit organizations with a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. They claim that the…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(2) — 20 cases
Black v. Jackson, 82 S.W.3d 44 (Tex. App. 2002).
Diane Patricia Horen v. Commonwealth, 479 S.E.2d 553 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 513 U.S. 979 (1994).
Rasul v. Rumsfeld, 433 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2006).
Beckwith Elec. Co. v. Sebelius, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2013).
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(l) — 73 cases
Smith v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Comm'n, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996). “I, § 4) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.). The court also concluded that Smith's inquiry into her tenants' marital status did not violate their right to privacy under the state Constitution.”
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004).
Vill. of Bensenville v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “ROGERS, Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., requires strict scrutiny of a federal agency’s approval of an airport layout plan incident to a determination of eligibility for…”
Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “3516, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., seeking damages for their alleged illegal detention and torture at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…”
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). “We are called upon to decide whether this government-approved use of artificial snow on government-owned park land violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"), 42 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Fergerstrom, 101 P.3d 652 (Haw. App. 2004).
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.