Congress Passed a Religious Freedom Law. Then Christian Employers Had to Go to Court.
The CEA case shows that religious freedom protections can work and what it takes to use them when a federal mandate reaches the door.
Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 with a clear recognition: a government rule can burden religious exercise even when it was written to apply to everyone.
The law, known as RFRA, requires the federal government to meet a demanding test when its action substantially burdens someone’s religious exercise. It must demonstrate a compelling interest and show that applying the burden is the least restrictive way to pursue that interest.
That protection matters. But for Christian employers, reaching the point where a court applies it can mean years of uncertainty and expense. I know this because the Christian Employers Alliance went to court.
Federal requirements implementing the Affordable Care Act created a conflict for employers who objected on religious grounds to covering certain contraceptive drugs and devices in their health plans. CEA challenged enforcement of those requirements against its members. In 2019, a federal court issued a permanent injunction addressing the mandate and protecting qualifying CEA members under the terms of its order.
The employers we represent did not put their convictions aside when they offered health benefits to their employees. Nor could they simply ignore a federal requirement. They needed a way to operate in accordance with both their responsibilities as employers and their faith. It took litigation to secure that answer.
RFRA gave religious employers a legal protection they could invoke. It did not spare them the need to identify a conflict, bring a case, and wait for a court to resolve it. That experience should matter to every member of Congress writing a law that will be carried out through federal rules.
A bill’s effects do not end with the words Congress votes on. An agency may later define the details, tell employers what their plans must cover, or decide how a requirement will be enforced. Those decisions can bring a broad federal policy into direct conflict with an employer’s religious convictions.
Before passing a bill, lawmakers should ask what authority they are giving an agency and how it might be used. What will employers be required to do? Has Congress heard from those whose faith shapes their decisions about the workplace and employee benefits? Could the legislation give agencies clearer direction to account for religious exercise from the start?
None of those questions guarantees that every conflict will vanish. RFRA itself requires an examination of whether the government has a compelling interest and whether the burden imposed is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. But asking early can prevent avoidable conflicts and give the public a clearer account of the choices Congress has made.
The CEA case shows that religious freedom protections can work. It also shows what it takes for employers to use them when a federal mandate reaches their door.
Congress passed RFRA. When Congress writes the next law, it should remember the employers who had to go to court to make that promise meaningful.
