Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What recent legislative or ballot efforts (post-2020) have proposed new restrictions on religious law, and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Since 2020 U.S. lawmakers and voters have repeatedly advanced measures touching “religious law” broadly — most commonly state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)–style bills, pandemic-era protections for worship services, and ballot amendments to strengthen religious exemptions — with mixed results: some state RFRAs and related statutes passed (e.g., South Carolina’s Religious Freedom Act, ratified April 25, 2022) while Texas voters approved Proposition 3 in 2021 to bar limits on religious services [1] [2]. Coverage focuses on domestic RFRA-style proposals, pandemic-era ballot responses, and a flurry of federal and state proposals to clarify or rein in RFRA’s reach [3] [1] [4].
1. The RFRA revival: bills to expand religious exemptions
After a string of high‑profile court decisions and state disputes, many state legislatures reintroduced or enacted RFRA-style statutes to strengthen individual and institutional religious claims. Georgia and other states saw renewed RFRA pushes in 2024; Georgia’s bill was advanced out of committee on a party-line vote and moved toward the full legislature [3]. South Carolina enacted a state Religious Freedom Act in 2022, which the legislature passed and the governor signed (ratified April 25, 2022) [1]. Nationally, Congress and advocacy coalitions also reintroduced measures to clarify RFRA’s scope, including the Do No Harm Act aimed at preventing RFRA from being used to undermine civil‑rights or healthcare protections [5] [6].
2. Ballot responses to pandemic limits on worship
The COVID‑19 pandemic produced immediate legal and political backlash against emergency limits on religious gatherings; at least one legislatively referred amendment responded directly. Texas Proposition 3 (Nov. 2021) added language to the state constitution prohibiting the state or local governments from enacting laws, rules, orders, or proclamations that limit religious services or organizations — and voters approved it [2]. Ballotpedia tracked pandemic‑era measures and noted Proposition 3 was the lone statewide religious‑service measure certified in 2021 [2].
3. Federal legislative and regulatory moves: clarifying or contesting RFRA use
At the federal level, lawmakers introduced bills affecting how religious objections interact with public policy. The Religious Freedom Over Mandates Act (H.R. 6502, 117th Congress) targeted federal administrative handling of religious accommodations tied to COVID‑19 vaccination requirements but did not become law [7] [4]. Conversely, civil‑rights leaders repeatedly reintroduced the Do No Harm Act in Congress to limit RFRA’s use to justify discrimination and to restore what sponsors say is RFRA’s original intent [5] [6]. Administrative rulemaking also shifted: the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs rescinded a 2021 rule that critics feared would allow broader religious exemptions from nondiscrimination obligations [8].
4. Who’s driving these efforts — and why the polarization?
Two consistent drivers appear across reporting and advocacy: conservative and faith‑based groups pushing for stronger statutory religious protections and civil‑rights and LGBTQ+ organizations warning that expanded exemptions will enable discrimination. Advocates for expanded protections argue they plug perceived legal gaps and restore robust free‑exercise safeguards (Georgia proponents’ framing) [3]. Opponents — including civil‑rights leaders who support the Do No Harm Act — argue RFRA has been weaponized to erode other legal protections, prompting legislative responses to narrow RFRA’s reach [5] [6].
5. Outcomes so far: wins, losses, and ongoing battles
The record since 2020 is mixed. Some state enactments and voter approvals show success for expansionist efforts (South Carolina law enacted April 2022; Texas voters approved Proposition 3 in 2021) [1] [2]. Federal bills seeking to expand or restrict RFRA’s application have circulated but many have not become law; H.R. 6502 did not enact, and Do No Harm proponents continue reintroduction efforts [4] [5]. Administrative changes — such as OFCCP’s 2023 rescission of a 2021 religious‑exemption rule — demonstrate policy churn via rulemaking as well as litigation and legislative tactics [8].
6. Legal and informational limits in the sources
Reporting and official materials emphasize that many proposals do not explicitly invoke “religious law” (i.e., foreign or canonical legal systems) but instead expand state or federal protections for religious exercise or institutional exemptions; available sources do not mention significant post‑2020 U.S. initiatives aimed at curbing the application of foreign religious law per se (e.g., bans on applying sharia or halakhic rules) beyond the general RFRA/exemption debates (not found in current reporting). Internationally, organizations such as USCIRF and Pew document government restrictions on religion globally, but that literature focuses on state suppression rather than U.S. domestic prohibition of “religious law” [9] [10].
7. Why this matters going forward
These legislative and ballot fights reshape the balance between protecting free exercise and preventing religiously motivated harms or discrimination; they also shift disputes from courts to legislatures and voters. That dynamic guarantees continuing contention: pro‑RFRA statutes and ballot wins signal strong political appetite for protections, while federal bills like the Do No Harm Act and administrative rescissions show counter‑pressures aimed at limiting exemptions that could impinge civil rights [5] [8].