The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a US federal law that seeks to prevent legislations that burdens the free exercise of religion by an individual. The Act states that the Government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” (Magarian, 2001, p. 1903). Religious issues with regard to legislation had intensified in the 1970s, when the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality; a decisions that would restrict the authority of the federal government to limit religious freedoms of people using “restrictive legislation” (Magarian, 2001, p. 1907).
This, however, changed in the 1980s, when the decisions of the Supreme Court changed in favor of the government, allowing it to enact legislation that restricts the freedom of individuals to exercise their religion as long as these limitations applied equally to all religions. This was met with increasing opposition by the activity of religious organizations and civil rights groups, which formed the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. As a result, the RFRA was strongly promoted and its requirements were legislated upon.
The requirements of the law stated that the government could not exercise the restriction of religious freedom unless there was a dire need to protect the society from certain religious aspects or if there was an urgent need to further the interests of the government and, in doing this, that the government should choose the least invasive approach. These developments led to the passing of the law by the Congress in 1993. Quite importantly, the law protected Native American religious practices, such as the use of Peyote in religious ceremonies.
The RFRA has faced its opposition over the last two decades, especially in the 1990s. The Supreme Court, for example, has ruled a number of times