RFRA Reform for Civil Rights

Summary#

The Do No Harm Act changes how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) works. It says RFRA cannot be used to block enforcement or implementation of several kinds of federal laws that protect other people. It also clarifies that RFRA-based claims can be brought only in court cases where the government is a party seeking relief from the government.

  • Main change: RFRA will not apply to federal laws that protect against discrimination, require wages/benefits/leave, protect children, guarantee access to health care (including information, referrals, provision, or coverage), or to terms of government contracts that require services for program beneficiaries.
  • Main change: RFRA will be limited so it applies only in judicial proceedings that involve the government as a party (i.e., it will not provide a cause of action between private parties against other private parties).
  • Policy goal stated in the bill: to protect civil rights and prevent meaningful harm to third parties.

What it means for you#

  • People seeking civil-rights protections (for example, against discrimination): Federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act cannot be blocked or altered by a RFRA claim under this bill. This could make it harder for someone accused of discrimination to claim a RFRA exemption from those duties.
  • Workers and employees: Protections linked to wages, benefits, leave, and collective workplace activities are listed as exceptions. Employers will not be able to use RFRA to avoid providing wage or benefit requirements established by federal law.
  • People needing health care: RFRA could not be used to block access to health care items or services, or to block information, referrals, or coverage required by federal law. This could affect providers or organizations that had sought religious exemptions to refuse providing certain care or referrals.
  • Parents and children: Protections against child labor, abuse, and exploitation are explicitly covered, so RFRA could not be used to prevent enforcement of those protections.
  • Religious individuals and organizations: The bill narrows situations where RFRA provides a defense. It could limit the ability to use RFRA to avoid complying with the listed federal laws.
  • Government contractors and program providers: Terms of government contracts, grants, and awards that require services to program beneficiaries are exempt from RFRA claims, so contractors must follow those contract terms even if they claim religious objections.
  • Private parties in lawsuits: RFRA will be clarified to apply only where the government is a party. That means if a private person or company sues another private person or company, RFRA would not be the avenue to seek relief against that private party.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or budget estimate.
  • Possible administrative or legal effects (inferred): this could change how often RFRA-based litigation is filed and could shift legal costs to other areas, but the bill does not estimate those costs.
  • Possible compliance effects (inferred): entities that previously sought RFRA exemptions from federal laws listed in the bill may face compliance costs to meet those laws instead of relying on RFRA; the bill does not quantify such costs.

Proponents' View#

The bill itself states its purpose and suggests reasons someone might support it.

  • The bill appears intended to ensure RFRA cannot be used to defeat federal protections that prevent harm to other people.
  • It appears intended to protect civil-rights laws and safety-related laws from being overridden by religious-exemption claims.
  • Limiting RFRA to cases involving the government could be seen as restoring RFRA to disputes about government action, rather than letting RFRA be used in private lawsuits between individuals or businesses.
  • Supporters may view these changes as protecting vulnerable people (for example, people protected by anti-discrimination laws, children, and patients) from being harmed by others’ religious objections.

Opponents' View#

Based only on the bill text, these are potential concerns or open questions.

  • One concern is that the bill reduces the scope of religious liberty protection under RFRA by removing certain defenses; individuals and organizations who relied on RFRA may lose legal protections.
  • It is unclear how courts will interpret phrases like “access to” or the scope of the government-contracts exception; that could produce more litigation over what is covered.
  • Narrowing RFRA to suits involving the government may leave private parties without a uniform federal religious-exemption remedy; affected parties might seek relief under other laws or state rules.
  • The bill does not provide fiscal estimates, so it is unclear how much government agencies, courts, or private parties will spend to adjust policies, handle new litigation, or ensure compliance.
  • Some might argue the list of federal laws in the exceptions is incomplete or could have gaps; the bill does not explain how it would interact with other federal statutes not named.