Thirty years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. It was a monumental event in religious liberty law at the time, and it remains part of an even more complex legal landscape of religious exemptions today. Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman look at the standard set by RFRA and discuss how the law has been used in cases dealing with issues ranging from sacramental drug use to application of health insurance regulations. They discuss the non-controversial applications of RFRA, too, and the search for win-win solutions to complicated situations that arise in a religiously pluralistic society.

 

SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The need for and passage of RFRA

Learn more about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) on BJC’s website: BJConline.org/RFRA

Holly wrote a column on RFRA for Word&Way’s “A Public Witness” newsletter, and you can read it here: Revisiting RFRA 30 years later

Read the text of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act at this link.

Amanda mentioned these two “high water mark” cases in the period before 1990: Sherbert v. Verner (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

The 1990 Employment Division v. Smith is the case often known as the “peyote case.” We played audio from Justice Antonin Scalia reading the opinion of the Court from the bench, which you can listen to and read at this link.

Watch the signing ceremony for RFRA on November 16, 1993, at this link on the YouTube channel of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library.

Holly mentioned this printed resource available on our website, produced for the 20th anniversary of RFRA. 

 

Segment 2 (starting at 14:16): Twists and turns of RFRA over 30 years

Amanda mentioned the 1997 case that struck down RFRA as applied to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) has the same standard as RFRA, but it has not been the subject of so many controversies.

Holly and Amanda mentioned three other RFRA cases: Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal in 2006 (also known as the “UDV” case), Tanzin v. Tanvir in 2020, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores in 2014.

Holly wrote about the application of RFRA to corporations in light of the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Examining RFRA in light of Hobby Lobby

J. Brent Walker, former executive director of BJC at the time, wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision in 2014: Exploring Hobby Lobby’s narrow victory

 

Segment 3 (starting at 32:28): The state of RFRA today

Here are additional resources from BJC providing more context on the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

Podcasts:

• S1, Ep. 06: Stay-at-home orders, religious freedom and RFRA (2020)
• S1, Ep. 12: Not a charm: Contraceptive mandate returns to the Supreme Court for the third time (2020)
• S3, Ep. 03: What’s going on with religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates? (2021)

Video:

• Watch this video of former BJC General Counsel Oliver “Buzz” Thomas discussing the origins of RFRA

Resources from BJC on cases:

• Zubik v. Burwell (2016)
• Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020)

Additional reading:

• Do states need religious freedom legislation? By J. Brent Walker, 2015
• Contraceptive mandate oral arguments shed light on underreported issues by Holly Hollman, 2014
• RFRA’s constitutionality called into question by J. Brent Walker, 2014
• RFRA at 20: A retrospective by Holly Hollman, 2013
• Remembering the origins of RFRA by J. Brent Walker, 2013

Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC’s generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.