RFRA in plain words

What RFRA is

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal law (it’s in the U.S. Code at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb and the sections after it). Its core rule has two parts:

1. The government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even through a rule that applies to everyone.
2. Unless it can show that applying the burden to that person (a) furthers a compelling governmental interest and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of that rule can raise RFRA in court, either to bring a claim or as a defense.

Lawyers call this test “strict scrutiny”. It’s the hardest standard the government can be held to, but it isn’t a blank check: the government can still meet it in a particular case.

Why Congress passed it

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause doesn’t require exemptions from laws that are neutral and apply to everyone, even when those laws burden a religious practice. The case began with two members of the Native American Church who lost their jobs, and then their unemployment benefits, over the sacramental use of peyote.

Congress answered with RFRA three years later, passed with broad support from both parties. Its stated purpose was to restore the “compelling interest” test the courts had used before Smith, in cases such as Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

Where it applies

• The federal government. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Supreme Court held that Congress couldn’t apply RFRA to the states. It still applies to the federal government: its laws, agencies and officers. Federal drug law is federal law, so a RFRA claim can be raised against how it’s applied.
• The states. Each state’s own law and constitution govern what the state does. Many states have passed religious-freedom laws of their own. Pennsylvania’s is the Religious Freedom Protection Act of 2002; how it compares with the federal law is the first question for this initiative’s Pennsylvania lane, and it will get its own explainer once it’s been researched and reviewed.

The landmark case: a sacramental tea

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) is the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on RFRA and a sacrament.

• The church. The União do Vegetal (UDV) is a religious society with origins in Brazil. Its members receive communion through hoasca, a tea brewed from two Amazonian plants. One of them contains DMT, which federal law lists in Schedule I, its most restricted category.
• What happened. Federal agents seized a shipment of the tea, and the church sued under RFRA. The government didn’t dispute that the church’s practice was sincere or that the drug law substantially burdened it. The lower courts ordered that the church could keep using the tea while the case went on.
• What the Court decided. In February 2006 the Supreme Court, unanimously, upheld that order. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that RFRA requires the government to show its compelling interest is served by applying the law “to the person”: the particular claimant whose sincere religious exercise is burdened. General findings about a substance weren’t enough by themselves.
• One reason why. Federal law already exempts the Native American Church’s sacramental use of peyote, also a Schedule I substance. That undercut the argument that the drug laws can’t make room for any religious exception.
• What it didn’t decide. It didn’t legalize any substance, and it doesn’t automatically cover any other group or practice. It confirmed that RFRA calls for a careful look at each claim, on its own facts.

Why sincerity matters

RFRA protects the sincere exercise of religion. Courts don’t decide whether a belief is true, reasonable or popular, and the law (as amended in 2000) covers any exercise of religion, whether or not it’s required by, or central to, a system of religious belief. But courts can, and do, ask whether a belief is sincerely held, and they have turned away claims they found to be something other than religion.

In general terms, then, a RFRA case asks three things in order: whether the practice is a sincere exercise of religion; whether the law substantially burdens it; and if so, whether the government can show a compelling interest pursued in the least restrictive way, for that person.

That’s why this initiative is an evidence lane. The questions RFRA asks are questions of fact, and communities whose practice is sincere are best served when the facts about the law, the research and religious practice are gathered carefully and explained plainly.

What this explainer doesn’t cover yet

• Pennsylvania’s own law, in detail (the Pennsylvania lane’s first explainer).
• Other court decisions, and how federal agencies handle requests for religious exemptions (the evidence library).
• Anything about a particular person or situation. That’s a question for a lawyer, never for a page like this one.

Sources, and notes for reviewers

Sources

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
• Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
• City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
• Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
• Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Before this draft is marked final

• Check each citation and quotation against the official text.
• Confirm the Pennsylvania statute’s name, year and citation, and how it’s worded.
• Have someone with legal training read the whole explainer for accuracy and neutrality.

Written 2026-10-13. Corrections are welcome and will be noted in the changelog.