By Tyler Arnold
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 /
17:56 pm
Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.
As of 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 those protections for state-level laws 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 did the same in 2021.
RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.
Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court.
Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening
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 voiced opposition to the protections.
Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient 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 under 5%.”
Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.
From 2014 through 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 workplace policies from religious employers.
However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”
One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.
Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”
In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased 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 for migrants.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Tyler Arnold is a staff reporter for Catholic News Agency, based in EWTN News’ Washington Bureau. He previously worked at The Center Square and has been published in a variety of outlets, including The Associated Press, National Review, The American Conservative, and The Federalist.
