View source for Religious Freedom Restoration Act

{{Short description|1993 United States federal law}}
{{about||state versions of the RFRA|State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|the Indiana legislation|Indiana SB 101}}
{{Use American English|date = March 2019}}
{{Use mdy dates|date = August 2012}}
{{Infobox U.S. legislation
| name = Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
| fullname = An Act to protect the free exercise of religion.
| acronym = RFRA
| nickname = 
| enacted by = 103rd
| effective date = November 16, 1993
| public law url = http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1488.pdf
| cite public law = 103-141
| cite statutes at large = {{USStat|107|1488}}
| acts amended = 
| acts repealed = 
| title amended = [[Title 42 of the United States Code|42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare]]
| sections created = {{Usc-title-chap|42|21B}} § 2000bb et seq.
| sections amended = 
| leghisturl = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01308:@@@S
| introducedin = House
| introducedbill = {{USBill|103|H.R.|1308}}
| introducedby = [[Chuck Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[New York (state)|NY]])
| introduceddate = March 11, 1993
| committees = [[United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary]], [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary]]
| passedbody1 = House
| passeddate1 = May 11, 1993
| passedvote1 = passed voice vote
| passedbody2 = Senate
| passedas2 = <!-- used if the second body changes the name of the legislation -->
| passeddate2 = October 27, 1993
| passedvote2 = 97–3, {{US Senate Vote|103|1|331}}, in lieu of {{USBill|103|S|578}}
| agreedbody3 = House
| agreeddate3 = November 3, 1993
| agreedvote3 = without objection
| signedpresident = [[Bill Clinton]]
| signeddate = November 16, 1993
| amendments = 
| SCOTUS cases = {{ubl|''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' {{ussc|521|507|1997}}|''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'' {{ussc|546|418|2006}}|''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby]]'', {{ussc|573|682|2014}}|''[[Zubik v. Burwell]]'', {{ussc|docket=14-1418|volume=578|year=2016}}|''[[Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania]]'', {{ussc|docket=19-431|volume=591|year=2020}}|''[[Tanzin v. Tanvir]]'', {{ussc|docket=19-71|volume=592|year=2020}}}}
}}

The '''Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993''', Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at {{USC|42|2000bb}} through {{USC|42|2000bb-4}} (also known as '''RFRA''', pronounced "rifra"<ref>{{Cite web|title=Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act Overview|url=https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/discrimination/federal-religious-freedom-restoration-act-overview.html|access-date=2021-03-22|website=Findlaw|language=en-US}}</ref>), is a 1993 [[United States federal law]] that "ensures that interests in [[religious freedom in the United States|religious freedom]] are protected."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus: Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.]</ref> The [[Bill (proposed law)|bill]] was introduced by Congressman [[Chuck Schumer]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]–[[New York (state)|NY]]) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by [[Ted Kennedy]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[Massachusetts|MA]]) the same day. A unanimous [[U.S. House]] and a nearly unanimous [[U.S. Senate]]—three senators voted against passage<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/|title=1A. What Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?|work=The Volokh Conspiracy|date=December 2, 2013}}</ref>—passed the bill, and President [[Bill Clinton]] signed it into law.

The law was passed in response to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]'s 1990 decision in ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', which held that "neutral laws of general applicability" that burden the free exercise of religion do not violate the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. RFRA requires that [[strict scrutiny]] be applied to any law that burdens religious freedom, providing that such a law may only be justified if it is the least restrictive means of pursuing a compelling government interest.

While RFRA initially applied to both state and federal laws, its application to state governments was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'' decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of [[Congressional power of enforcement|Congress's enforcement power]]. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'' (2006) and ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.]]'' (2014). In response to ''City of Boerne v. Flores'' and other related RFR issues, twenty-one individual states have passed [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts]] that apply to state governments and local municipalities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx|title=State Religious Freedom Acts|work=National Conference of State Legislatures}}</ref>

==Provisions==
This law reinstated the [[Sherbert Test]], which was set forth by ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'', and ''[[Wisconsin v. Yoder]]'', mandating that [[strict scrutiny]] be used when determining whether the [[Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment|Free Exercise Clause]] of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;<ref name="RFRA">[http://www.prop1.org/rainbow/rfra.htm Religious Freedom Restoration Act (full text)]</ref> therefore, 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."<ref name="Utter">{{cite book |last1=Utter |first1=Jack |year=2001 |title=American Indians: Answers to Today's Questions |page=159 |publisher=University of Oklahoma Press |isbn=0-8061-3309-0}}</ref>

The law provided an exception if two conditions are met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."<ref name="Utter"/> Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly to core constitutional issues.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Ross |first1=Susan |year=2004 |title=Deciding communication law: key cases in context |location=New Jersey |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=0-8058-4698-0}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

==Background and passage==
{{See also|American Indian Religious Freedom Act|Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act}}
[[File:Peyote ceremony tipi.jpg|thumb|200px | right | This [[tipi]] is used for [[peyote]] ceremonies in the [[Native American Church]], the religion at the center of ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]].'']]

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. ''[[Sherbert v. Verner]]'', [[court citation|374 U.S. 398]] (1963); ''[[Wisconsin v. Yoder]]'', [[court citation|406 U.S. 205]] (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens.

But "generally applicable" bans frequently conflicted with [[Native American religion|Native American religious practice]].  Often, government projects required acquisition of sacred grounds necessary for Native American rituals.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Waldman|first1=Carl|url=https://archive.org/details/atlasofnorthamer00wald|title=Atlas of the North American Indian|publisher=Checkmark Books|year=2009|isbn=978-0-8160-6859-3|location=New York|url-access=registration}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref>  Ritual [[peyote]] use infringed on the federal [[war on drugs]].  And the [[American Indian Religious Freedom Act]], which Congress had passed to protect tribal religious freedoms, lacked an enforcement mechanism.

These interests collided in ''[[Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association]]'', 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

In ''Lyng'', members of the [[Yurok people|Yurok]], [[Tolowa]] and [[Karok]] tribes argued that the [[First Amendment of the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] should prevent the [[United States Forest Service|U.S. Forest Service]] from constructing a road through sacred land used in ceremonies and prayer. The Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that only government coercion or punishment for religious beliefs would violate the First Amendment.<ref name="Duthu">{{cite book |last1=Duthu |first1=Bruce N. |year=2009 |title=American Indians and the Law |pages=111–2 |publisher=Penguin Books |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-311478-9}}</ref>

In ''Smith'', the Court upheld the state of [[Oregon]]'s refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for [[mescaline]], the main psychoactive compound in the [[peyote]] cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony.<ref>''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'', 494 U.S. 872 (1990).</ref>

The ''Smith'' decision outraged the public. Groups representing all points on the political spectrum (from the liberal [[American Civil Liberties Union]] to the conservative [[Traditional Values Coalition]]) and a wide variety of religions (i.e. the [[Christian Legal Society]], the [[American Jewish Congress]], the [[Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty]], and the [[National Association of Evangelicals]]) agreed that the law required reform, and recommended reinstating the [[Sherbert Test|''Sherbert'' Test]].  In response, Congress passed the RFRA, unanimously in the [[United States House of Representatives|House]] and 97-to-3 in the [[United States Senate|Senate]].  The bill was then signed by [[President of the United States|U.S. president]] [[Bill Clinton]].<ref name="Nussbaum">{{cite book|last1=Nussbaum|first1=Martha|title=Liberty of Conscience: in defense of America's tradition of religious equality|publisher=Basic Books|year=2008|isbn=978-0-465-05164-9|location=New York}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref>

===Applicability===
The RFRA applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application."<ref>42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–3 Applicability</ref>

According to a federal appeals court ruling on March 7, 2018, the RFRA did not justify discrimination against employees on the basis of their lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity in those circumstances.<ref>{{cite news| author-link1 = Mark Joseph Stern | last1 = Stern |first1=Mark Joseph|title=Businesses Can't Fire Trans Employees for Religious Reasons, Federal Appeals Court Rules in Landmark Decision|url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/sixth-circuit-rules-businesses-cant-fire-transgender-employees-for-religious-reasons.html|access-date=8 March 2018|publisher=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date=7 March 2018}}</ref> However, on October 15, 2019, federal judge [[Reed O'Connor|Reed O’Connor]] said that, because of the RFRA, federally funded healthcare insurers and providers must be allowed to deny medical treatment and coverage on the basis of the sex, gender identity or termination of pregnancy of the person who is requesting the services, even if the services are medically necessary. Transgender people may be turned down even if the healthcare service they need is not related to their being transgender.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/465939-federal-judge-overturns-obamacare-transgender-protections|title=Federal judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections|last=Weixel|first=Nathaniel|date=2019-10-15|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=2019-10-15}}</ref>

==Challenges and weaknesses==
[[File:Peyote Cactus.jpg|thumb|200px | right | The [[peyote cactus]], the source of the [[mescaline]] used by some Native Americans in religious ceremonies.]]

In 1997, part of this act was overturned by the [[United States Supreme Court]]. The [[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio]] wanted to enlarge a church in [[Boerne, Texas]], but a Boerne ordinance protected the building as a historic landmark and did not permit it to be torn down. The church sued, citing RFRA, and in the resulting case, ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'', {{Ussc|521|507|1997}}, the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA with respect to its applicability to States (but not Federally), stating that Congress had stepped beyond its power of enforcement provided in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref name="Nussbaum"/> In response to the ''Boerne'' ruling, Congress passed the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious land owners.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hamilton |first1=Marci |year=2005 |title=God vs. the gavel: religion and the rule of law |location=Cambridge, NY |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-85304-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/godvsgavelreligi00hami }}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref>

A number of states have passed [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|state RFRAs]], applying the rule to the laws of their own state, but the ''Smith'' case remains the authority in these matters in many states.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Canby |first1=William C. |year=2004 |title=American Indian Law |page=[https://archive.org/details/america_can_2004_00_7706/page/344 344] |publisher=West Publishing |location=St. Paul |isbn=0-314-14640-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/america_can_2004_00_7706/page/344 }}</ref>

The constitutionality of RFRA as applied to the federal government was confirmed on February 21, 2006, as the Supreme Court ruled against the government in ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'', {{Ussc|546|418|2006}}, which involved the use of an otherwise illegal substance in a religious ceremony, stating that the federal government must show a compelling state interest in restricting religious conduct.<ref>When the US Supreme Court, in its judgment of 21 February 2006 on the case ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal]]'' (no. 04-1084 ), held that the sacramental use of [[hoasca]] (a tea leaf containing hallucinogen) cannot be inhibited to believers of that confession, it did so under clause general contained in the religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which leaves it to the judge to decide if there is a burden unfairly overloaded by the government on the free exercise of the religion of its citizens: {{cite journal|last1=Buonomo|first1=Giampiero|title=Riconoscimento della natura religiosa delle associazioni: il caso (negativo, quanto controverso) dei Rosacroce|journal=Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online|date=2007|url=https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89404146|language=it|access-date=April 9, 2016|archive-date=December 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191211140818/https://www.questia.com/projects#!/project/89404146|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Post-''Smith'', many members of the [[Native American Church]] still had issues using [[peyote]] in their ceremonies. This led to the [[American Indian Religious Freedom Act|Religious Freedom Act Amendments in 1994]], which state, "the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremony purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any state. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation."<ref name="Utter"/>

''[[Tanzin v. Tanvir]]'' (2020) determined that RFRA allows for those whose religious rights are adversely affected by federal officers acting in their capacity for the government to seek appropriate remedies, including monetary damages, from those individuals. The case involved three Muslim men, all legal residents of the United States, who had been placed on the [[No Fly List]] by FBI agents for refusing to be informants for their fellow Muslim communities.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/945000341/supreme-court-says-muslim-men-can-sue-fbi-agents-in-no-fly-list-case | title = Supreme Court Says Muslim Men Can Sue FBI Agents In No-Fly List Case | first= Nina | last= Totenberg | date = December 10, 2020 | access-date = December 11, 2020 | work = [[NPR]] }}</ref>

==Applications and effects==
[[File:Photograph of President William J. Clinton Signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the South Lawn at the White House - NARA - 5709788.jpg|thumb|President [[Bill Clinton]] signing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the South Lawn at the White House. Participants at the signing include Vice President [[Al Gore]], Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Mark O. Hatfield, and Senator Howard Metzenbaum.]]
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds the federal government responsible for accepting additional obligations to protect religious exercise. In ''O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons'', it was found that the RFRA governs the actions of federal officers and agencies and that the RFRA can be applied to "internal operations of the federal government."<ref>{{cite book|author1-link=Gregory Sisk |last1=Sisk |first1=Gregory |year=2006 |title=Litigation with the federal government |publisher=American Law Institute |isbn=0-8318-0865-9}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> RFRA, in conjunction with President [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[List of executive actions by Bill Clinton|executive order]] in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.<ref name="Utter"/>

As of 1996, the year before the RFRA was found unconstitutional as applied to states, 337 cases had cited RFRA in its three-year time range.<ref name="Richardson">{{cite book |last1=Richardson |first1=James |year=2004 |title=Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic |isbn=0-306-47886-2}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> It was also found that Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions, which make up only three percent of [[Religion in the United States#Statistics|religious membership in the U.S.]], make up 18 percent of the cases involving the free exercise of religion.<ref name="Richardson"/>
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a cornerstone for tribes challenging the [[National Forest Service]]'s plans to permit upgrades to Arizona's [[Snowbowl ski resort]]. Six tribes were involved, including the [[Navajo Nation|Navajo]], [[Hopi]], [[Havasupai]], and [[Hualapai]]. The tribes objected on religious grounds to the plans to use [[reclaimed water]]. They felt that this risked infecting the tribal members with "[[ghost sickness]]" as the water would be from mortuaries and hospitals. They also felt that the reclaimed water would contaminate the plant life used in ceremonies. In August 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their RFRA claim.<ref>535 F.3d 1058</ref><ref>[http://www.law.uh.edu/eelpj/publications/4-1/Dobson.pdf RFRA Land Use Challenges After Navajo Nation v. U.S. Parks Service], [http://www.law.uh.edu/ University of Houston Law Center].</ref>

In the case of ''Adams v. Commissioner'', the [[United States Tax Court]] rejected the argument of Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, who was a devout [[Quaker]]. She tried to argue that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, she was exempt from [[federal income taxes]]. The U.S. Tax Court rejected her argument and ruled that she was not exempt. The court stated that "while petitioner's religious beliefs are substantially burdened by payment of taxes that fund military expenditures, the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest."<ref>See ''Adams v. Commissioner'', 110 T.C. 137 (1998), at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4364015158387191279&q=tax+%22Religious+Freedom+Restoration+Act%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,55,192].</ref> In the case of ''Miller v. Commissioner'', the taxpayers objected to the use of social security numbers, arguing that such numbers related to the "[[mark of the beast]]" from the Bible. In its decision, the U.S. Court discussed the applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but ruled against the taxpayers.<ref>See ''Miller v. Commissioner'', 114 T.C. 511 (2000), at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14963279972370697910&q=%22114+T.C.+511%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,55,192].</ref>

In ''[[Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service]]'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] held that the use of recycled sewage water in order to manufacture artificial snow in the [[San Francisco Peaks]] was not a "substantial burden" on the religious freedom of Native Americans.<ref name="Enbanc">{{cite court |litigants=Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service |vol=535 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1058 |court=9th Cir. |date=2008 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1324254/navajo-nation-v-us-forest-service/ |access-date=2017-10-07 }}</ref>

The RFRA figured prominently in oral arguments in the case, ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby]],'' heard by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-date=February 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202013843/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> In a 5–4 decision, Justice Alito declared that nothing about the language of RFRA or the manner in which Congress passed it implied the statutory protections conferred therein were confined solely within the bounds of First Amendment case law as it existed pre-''Smith''.<ref>See ''[[Burwell v. Hobby Lobby]]'', 114 T.C. 511 (2014), at [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf].</ref>

==20th anniversary==
A day-long symposium was held at the [[Newseum]] in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 7, 2013, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. "Restored or Endangered? The State of the Free Exercise of Religion in America" featured three panel discussions and two keynote addresses.

The first keynote address was from Oliver S. Thomas, the former general counsel of the [[Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty]] and the chair of the diverse "Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion" in the 1990s that worked for the passage of RFRA. The second was from [[Douglas Laycock]], who was an author of RFRA. His address traced the legal history of RFRA and discussed its impact on current debates, including the contraception mandate and same-sex marriage laws.

The panel discussions covered the history and impact of RFRA, religious freedom and the contraceptive mandate of the [[Affordable Care Act]], and current and future challenges to the free exercise of religion in a diverse society. The addresses and panel discussions are all available online, as well as a special downloadable resource with more on RFRA, published by the Baptist Joint Committee.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bjconline.org/rfra-symposium/|title=The Religious Freedom Restoration Act|work=Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Freedom of religion in the United States]]
* [[Reuben Snake]]
* [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts]]
* [[War on drugs]]

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
* [https://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21B.html Text of the statute]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20010411000039/http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1gupta.html Unconstitutional Restoration] - A ''Princeton Law Journal'' article on the history, interpretation, and status of the Act.
* [http://rfraperils.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/journals.law_.harvard.edu_hlpr_files_2013_08_HLP102_crop.pdf RFRAs and Public Policy]
* [http://bjconline.org/rfra/ RFRA history and resources from the Baptist Joint Committee]
* [http://bjconline.org/rfra-symposium/ Baptist Joint Committee page dedicated to Newseum symposium]

{{US1stAmendment Free Exercise Clause Supreme Court case law}}
{{Chuck Schumer}}

[[Category:1993 in American politics]]
[[Category:1993 in American law]]
[[Category:1993 in religion]]
[[Category:November 1993 in the United States]]
[[Category:United States federal legislation]]
[[Category:Freedom of religion in the United States]]
[[Category:United States legislation about religion]]
[[Category:Ted Kennedy]]
[[Category:Chuck Schumer]]
[[Category:Presidency of Bill Clinton]]