The Archdiocese of St. Louis this month sued the federal government and several other defendants for what it said are policies that prevent Catholic immigrant detainees from obtaining the sacraments, including the Eucharist.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court, alleged among other claims that the government is violating the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by barring clergy access to those detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. One prison official reportedly suggested that priests could "pass communion in a plastic bag to a prison guard who could then deliver it to the detainee."
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is invoked regularly in federal lawsuits by those who argue that the government is excessively burdening their religion. But how does this more-than-30-year-old law work, and how exactly does it protect religious liberty in the U.S.?
Government may not 'substantially burden' religion
A rare example of bipartisan unity, the federal law was proposed in 1993, passed unanimously in the U.S. House and near-unanimously in the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
The impetus for the law arose in large part due to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division v. Smith. That 1990 decision held that Oregon was permitted to deny unemployment benefits to two Native American residents who had been fired after using peyote in a religious ritual.
Outrage from a large cross-section of civil liberties groups and religious rights organizations led Congress to draft and pass the law. Clinton upon signing the measure said the law "reestablishes a standard that better protects all Americans of all faiths in the exercise of their religion."
The law directs that the government generally "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" even if the burden stems from a "rule of general applicability."
The rule does allow for such burdens if the government demonstrates that a restriction is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means" of accomplishing that goal.
Matt Sharp, who serves as senior counsel and vice president of public policy at Alliance Defending Freedom, told EWTN News the rule "puts the responsibility on the government" to demonstrate that its policies do not violate the law.
"The government has to show that it has a compelling reason to do something" that burdens someone's religious liberty, Sharp said. "It can't just say, 'We like this law.' It has to be a government interest of the highest order, such as national security or public safety."
Alliance Defending Freedom has handled numerous RFRA lawsuits over the years. Among them was the case Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, brought by a Mennonite Christian family who argued that the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate violated the federal religious freedom law.
The family ultimately prevailed, with the U.S. Supreme Court holding that the federal government had violated RFRA in requiring the family to cover contraceptives via its company's insurance policies.
Sharp, however, acknowledged that the rule has never been a "religion automatically wins" law.
"It definitely makes [U.S. law] more favorable and protective of religion," he said. But in some cases religious objectors aren't successful in their challenges, such as the Native American coalition that sued under RFRA to protect one of its sacred sites but which lost at the Supreme Court in 2025.
The Little Sisters of the Poor, meanwhile, have cited in part the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in their 15-year battle over contraceptive mandates.
Yet although the law can sometimes yield a mixed bag, protections for religious freedom have grown steadily in the U.S. in recent years. A total of 30 states so far have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or a similar form of legislation.
Sharp said RFRA requires the government to ensure that in cases where it is imposing on religious practice it is doing so in a "narrowly tailored" way with "the bare minimum possible" imposition.
"It's a high burden," he said. "In practice it has been hugely important and beneficial to people of faith."
