Religious freedom challenges to agency rules
Background
When federal agencies issue rules or regulations, those rules sometimes affect individuals or entities whose religious beliefs conflict with compliance. Challenges arise under constitutional and statutory grounds, primarily:
First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause): Prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1993): Applies a strict scrutiny test to federal laws or regulations that substantially burden religion unless justified by compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA): Protects religious exercise in land use and prisons but less relevant to agency rules.
Key Issues in Challenges
Whether the agency rule imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise.
Whether the agency can demonstrate a compelling interest in enforcing the rule.
Whether the rule is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Balancing government interests (public health, safety, nondiscrimination) with religious liberty.
Key Cases Explaining Religious Freedom Challenges to Agency Rules
1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)
Facts: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required employers to provide contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby, a closely held corporation, claimed this violated their religious beliefs.
Issue: Whether the ACA’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdened religious exercise under RFRA.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the mandate did impose a substantial burden and that the government failed to show it was the least restrictive means of advancing its interest.
Explanation: This case set a major precedent for religious freedom challenges to agency rules, establishing that corporations could have religious rights and that agencies must accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs.
Principle: Agency rules that impose a substantial burden on religious exercise must pass strict scrutiny under RFRA.
2. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
Facts: Two Native Americans were denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using peyote, which was part of a religious ceremony.
Issue: Whether the state law prohibiting peyote use violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Ruling: The Court held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religion do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Explanation: This case limited constitutional protection for religious freedom against neutral laws but led to RFRA’s enactment to restore stricter protections against federal laws.
Principle: Neutral and generally applicable laws are not subject to strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S.Ct. 2367 (2020)
Facts: The Trump administration issued rules providing religious and moral exemptions to the ACA contraceptive mandate.
Issue: Whether the agency properly exercised its authority to provide these exemptions under RFRA.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the agency’s rule allowing exemptions, recognizing the agency’s broad discretion in enforcing RFRA.
Explanation: The case affirms agencies’ ability to carve out religious exemptions when the statutory framework allows and emphasizes deference to agency interpretation.
Principle: Agencies have discretion to grant religious exemptions to rules under RFRA when consistent with statutory mandates.
4. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S.Ct. 63 (2020)
Facts: New York issued emergency COVID-19 restrictions limiting attendance at religious services.
Issue: Whether these restrictions violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Ruling: The Court enjoined enforcement, finding the restrictions were not neutral because secular activities were treated more leniently.
Explanation: Though state law, the case illustrates principles applied in reviewing agency rules affecting religious exercise—namely, strict scrutiny of non-neutral rules targeting religion.
Principle: Agency rules that treat religion less favorably than comparable secular conduct violate the Free Exercise Clause.
5. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018)
Facts: A cake shop owner refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding citing religious beliefs.
Issue: Whether applying anti-discrimination law violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Ruling: The Court ruled narrowly in favor of the cake shop due to hostility by the commission toward religion but recognized tension between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom.
Explanation: Highlights how agency enforcement of regulations can raise religious freedom issues.
Principle: Agencies must enforce rules without hostility toward religion and accommodate religious exercise where possible without undermining other rights.
6. Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015)
Facts: A Muslim prisoner sought to grow a beard for religious reasons contrary to prison grooming policies.
Issue: Whether the grooming policy violated RFRA.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of Holt, holding the policy imposed a substantial burden and was not the least restrictive means.
Explanation: Demonstrates that even prison or agency rules must accommodate religious practices unless strict scrutiny is satisfied.
Principle: RFRA protections apply broadly to agency rules that burden religious exercise.
Summary Table of Principles and Cases
| Case | Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) | Substantial burden triggers strict scrutiny under RFRA | Corporations have religious rights; agencies must accommodate |
| Employment Division v. Smith (1990) | Neutral, generally applicable laws don’t violate Free Exercise | Limited Free Exercise protection against neutral agency rules |
| Little Sisters of the Poor (2020) | Agency discretion to grant religious exemptions under RFRA | Agencies can carve exemptions consistent with statutes |
| Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo (2020) | Non-neutral rules targeting religion violate Free Exercise | Agency rules must be neutral and generally applicable |
| Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018) | Agencies must avoid hostility to religion in enforcement | Balance religious freedom with anti-discrimination enforcement |
| Holt v. Hobbs (2015) | RFRA protects religious exercise even in prisons/agency rules | Burdensome rules must satisfy strict scrutiny |
Conclusion
Religious freedom challenges to agency rules require courts to balance:
The government’s interest in enforcing the rule,
The burden on religious exercise,
And whether the agency’s rule or exemption is the least restrictive means.
RFRA raised the standard for federal agency rules, requiring strict scrutiny when religion is substantially burdened. Courts also defer to agency discretion but insist on neutrality and fairness in application.
RELATED Blog
0 comments