Sponsors
Last progress June 9, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 9, 2025 by Eleanor Holmes Norton
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Removes the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to the District of Columbia by deleting specified language from 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–2(2). The change narrows where RFRA can be used as a legal basis for religious‑liberty claims in the District of Columbia, without creating new programs or funding.
Amend paragraph (2) of section 5 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 by striking specified text and a comma. (The exact text to be struck is not included in the uploaded file.)
The provided section text appears incomplete: the clause or words being removed and the exact punctuation targeted are not shown in the uploaded document. This prevents identification of the exact language change from the provided file.
Who is affected and how:
Residents of the District of Columbia and people or organizations operating in the District: will no longer be able to rely on RFRA (the statutory standard) in litigation or administrative proceedings concerning the District; this removes one statutory pathway for asserting or defending religious‑liberty claims in the District.
Religious communities and believers, including religious minority groups in the District: could see changes in legal remedies available when a District law, regulation, or government action is challenged as burdening religious exercise; they retain constitutional protections but lose RFRA’s statutory standard in DC.
Courts and litigants: federal and local courts adjudicating District matters will adjust to the absence of RFRA as a statutory framework for DC disputes; this may increase reliance on First Amendment doctrines, local statutes, or other federal law.
District government and local officials: reduced exposure to RFRA‑based statutory claims in the District; but they remain subject to constitutional review and any District‑level statutes protecting religious exercise.
No fiscal or administrative agencies are assigned new duties, and no federal funding or mandates appear in the text. The change is legal/textual in nature rather than programmatic.
Uncertainties: the exact removed wording was not provided, so narrow textual nuances could affect how broadly the amendment removes RFRA coverage. That uncertainty could prompt litigation to interpret the amendment’s scope and retroactivity (whether it affects pending cases).