Protections for religious freedom in the US have grown in recent years

Religious freedom protections in the United States have grown in recent years, with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

For 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom.

The most recent states to adopt these state-level protections were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025, and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023, and South Dakota and Montana followed suit in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-US President Bill Clinton signed it into law. to expand protections for religious freedom. Under the law, the federal government cannot “impose a substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and it is acted by the “least restrictive means” possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in the case Employment Division v. Smithwhich held that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and of general application.” The law was designed to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than that offered by the highest court.

Bipartisan consensus disappeared, but opposition weakens

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats expressed opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told EWTN News’ CNA that in 2013 two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support among Republicans and about two-thirds support among Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after from the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortive drugs based on RFRA.

“That (bipartisan support) seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is below 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return soon, he attributed some cultural changes to strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 to 2020, he said, business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to labor policies of religious employers.

However, after 2020, he said, “RFRA policy is much more favorable,” noting that there has been “much less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely publicized story of Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led to polls “changing on all LGBT-related issues,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the reaction to the Transgender-related policies by Target and advertisements Bud Lightwhich provoked “consumer anger against both.” He noted that the money lost by corporations “caused business groups to say ‘we are not going to maintain the same position.’”

Despite the partisanship fueling the current debate, Schultz noted that RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services to migrants.

“(RFRA) is not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

Translated and adapted by the ACI Prensa team. Originally published in CNA.