Session 7: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed in 1993 in an effort to—according to its supporters—protect the rights of religious minorities. In this session, learn how RFRA has, since that time, been increasingly used to limit the scope of civil rights, and how civil rights groups and Black communities have responded.
About the speakers
Wendell L. Griffen is an Arkansas lawyer, jurist, legal educator, business leader, ordained Baptist minister, and public speaker. Born in Prescott, Arkansas, Judge Griffen attended the University of Arkansas School of Law from August 1976 through May 1979, when he received the Juris Doctor degree. After graduation from law school Judge Griffen joined the Little Rock law firm of Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, becoming the first lawyer of color to join a major Arkansas law firm. He practiced business and tort litigation with the firm and was admitted to the partnership in January 1984, becoming the first lawyer of color admitted to the partnership of a major Arkansas law firm.
On April 15, 1985, Governor Bill Clinton appointed Griffen Chairman of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission, making him the first person of color named to that state agency and the first to chair it. Griffen served in that position until February 2, 1987, when he returned to his law practice with Wright, Lindsey & Jennings. Governor Jim Guy Tucker appointed Judge Griffen to the Court of Appeals at the end of 1995, and he entered judicial service in 1996. In 2011, Judge Griffen was elected as judge to Arkansas’s Sixth Circuit for Pulaski County. He currently serves as pastor of New Millennium Church in Little Rock and CEO of Griffen Strategic Consulting.
Professor Henry L. Chambers, Jr., is Professor of Law and Austin E. Owen Research Scholar at the University of Richmond. He teaches and writes in the areas of law and religion, voting rights, employment discrimination, constitutional law, and criminal law. His articles and essays address topics as varied as constitutional and biblical interpretation, employer free exercise rights, and Episcopal Church property disputes. He has served in various roles in the Episcopal Church, including as a vice chair of a Diocesan Council, vestry member, and Sunday School teacher. Chambers has lectured on constitutional law in various venues, including through the We The People program which provides civic education instruction to school teachers and the public, at the OPM’s Federal Executive Institute, and through the Presidential Management Fellows Program. He is the editor of the pocket pamphlet, American Legacy: The United States Constitution and Other Essential Documents of American Democracy, 2nd Edition (Center for Civic Education 2023). Chambers has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2002.
Key Takeaways
President William J. Clinton signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives religious adherents the right to disobey laws that “substantially burden” their exercise of religion unless this burden is “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling government interest.” In other words,it provides religious people with a broad right to violate the law unless the government can offer a very strong justification for enforcement.
While RFRA was initially passed in response to a case that limited the ability of Native American religious practitioners to smoke peyote during religious rituals, it has been increasingly used by white conservative Christians rather than racial or religious minorities. In many of these cases, religious practitioners—including for-profit companies—have sought and gained religious exemptions from laws banning discrimination and increasing access to healthcare.
The RFRA test is multi-pronged and complex, leaving significant room for confusing or inconsistent application of the law. For instance, different judges will have vastly different notions of what constitutes a “compelling government interest.” Where judges evaluate sincerity at all, they may be predisposed to see members of majoritarian or “traditional” religious groups as being sincere.
Reflection Questions
What is the right balance between protecting religious practice and enforcing neutral laws? How do we best protect religious pluralism without allowing every individual to disobey any law or policy they oppose?
Prof. Chambers speaks in this session about “the inability to understand fairly obvious religious issues when they come out of the mouths of Black people.” How do you see this inability playing out both historically and today?
Judge Griffen notes in this session that “my history teaches me that State courts have been oftentimes the least reliable protectors of civil liberties. State legislatures have oftentimes been the most active infringers on civil liberties because they [criminalize what] would ordinarily be viewed as legitimate dissent.” Given the failures and limitations of both the judicial and legislative branches of government, which actors are better situated to protect religious freedoms?
Protestor in front of the Supreme Court during oral arguments in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (Victoria Pickering, 2022).
Further Reading
Wendell Griffen, The Fierce Urgency of Prophetic Hope (2017)
Resolution, “NAACP Calls on the Federal, State, and Local Governments to Establish a Better Balance Between Religious Freedoms and Civil Rights” (2016)
Watched this session of the curriculum and have some thoughts? We’d love to hear from you.