A federal law that prohibits the government from taking action that substantially burdens an individual's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the action:

(42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1.)

Congress enacted RFRA in response to a US Supreme Court decision (Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)), which overruled a then-existing approach to analyzing Free Exercise Clause claims. In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that RFRA, as applied to the states, was unconstitutional (521 U.S. 507 (1997)). However, Flores did not address the validity of the RFRA as it applies to the federal government. As a result, RFRA claims may still be brought against the federal government.

RFRA claims involve a two-step burden-shifting analysis. First, a claimant must show that complying with a generally applicable law would substantially burden the individual's religious exercise. If this showing is made, the government must then establish that applying the law to the burdened individual is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In the employee benefits context, RFRA has been the basis of challenges to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) contraceptives mandate and Section 1557 nondiscrimination regulations (see, for example, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (holding that the contraceptives mandate, as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, violated RFRA)). For more information, see Practice Notes, Contraceptives Coverage Under the ACA: Litigation Involving Contraceptives Mandate, Article, Trump Administration Religious Beliefs and Moral Convictions Exemptions to the ACA's Contraceptives Mandate, and Practice Note, Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities Under the ACA (Section 1557).