Title: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Headings: The First Amendment Encyclopedia
The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (1993)
By David Schultz (Updated September 2017 by David L. Hudson Jr.)
Congress passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act after First Amendment free exercise case
RFRA said courts have to use strict scrutiny when examining laws relating to religious freedom
Court limited RFRA, cited separation of powers
Congress created a narrower religious liberty law
Court used RFRA to uphold Hobby Lobby's religious-based exemption to federal health care law

Content: The Supreme Court ruled against the church and declared the RFRA unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asserted that in the case of the RFRA, Congress lacked authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, because in the hearings and debates on the act, it had failed to show that any violation of individual rights had occurred; the section 5 enforcement power only applies to an actual or real infringement of rights. The Court also ruled that the RFRA violated the principle of separation of powers and upset an important federal-state balance of powers by interfering with states’ traditional authority to regulate the health and safety of its citizens. As a result of Boerne, a number of states adopted their own “mini-RFRAs” to address free exercise claims in their court systems. Congress created a narrower religious liberty law
Moreover, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espi­rita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006) the Court ruled that the RFRA was valid as it applied to the federal government. The debate between Congress and the Supreme Court over the level of religious liberty protection remains ongoing. After the Court’s decision in Boerne, Congress responded with a narrower religious liberty law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Court rejected an establishment clause challenge to institutionalized persons aspect of RLUIPA in Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005). Kristin Hughs, left, announces to supporters the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case in Washington in 2014.