Christian Nationalism and Religious Exemptions
Christian Nationalism and Religious Exemptions
Religious exemptions are provisions in constitutional law, statutes, regulations, and government policies that allow individuals or institutions to avoid requirements that substantially conflict with religious beliefs or practices. In the United States, such exemptions have long been part of disputes over the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, the limits of government authority, and the extent to which religious exercise should receive special protection from generally applicable laws.
The modern debate extends well beyond disputes over private religious observance. Religious exemptions now arise in employment, health care, education, public accommodations, foster care and adoption, vaccination requirements, government contracting, public benefits, reproductive health, and LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws. These conflicts frequently involve two competing concerns: protecting religious exercise and determining when an exemption imposes costs or harms on other people.
Christian nationalism has become part of this broader debate because some scholars, advocacy organizations, and survey researchers have connected Christian nationalist beliefs with particular understandings of religious liberty, government, civil rights, and the relationship between Christianity and American public life. At the same time, religious-exemption law is much broader than Christian nationalism and protects adherents of many religions. Major exemption cases have involved Amish Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Santería practitioners, Native religious practices, and other religious communities.
Constitutional Foundations of Religious Exemptions
American religious-exemption law developed through a long series of Supreme Court decisions.
In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court distinguished between protected religious belief and conduct that government could regulate. Later cases continued to wrestle with the extent to which the Free Exercise Clause required exceptions from generally applicable laws.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) established strong constitutional protection for religious exercise when government substantially burdened an individual's religious practice. The Court required government to demonstrate a compelling justification for such burdens.
In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court granted Amish parents an exemption from compulsory school-attendance requirements beyond the eighth grade. Other decisions, including Thomas v. Review Board, Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, and Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, protected workers whose religious practices conflicted with employment requirements.
The constitutional landscape changed significantly with Employment Division v. Smith (1990). The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause ordinarily does not require religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
RFRA attempted to restore a demanding standard of review when government substantially burdens religious exercise. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), however, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose RFRA's standard broadly on state and local governments. RFRA continues to apply to the federal government, while many states have adopted their own religious-freedom statutes.
Congress also enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which provides additional protection for religious exercise in prisons and certain land-use disputes.
Expansion of Statutory Religious Liberty
Religious exemptions increasingly depend on statutory as well as constitutional protections.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the federal government to demonstrate that substantial burdens on religious exercise further a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means.
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously applied RFRA to protect a religious organization's sacramental use of a substance otherwise prohibited by federal drug laws.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), the Court held that closely held corporations could receive RFRA protection when their owners objected on religious grounds to certain contraceptive-coverage requirements.
The Court's religious-liberty jurisprudence has also affected access to public benefits. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020), and Carson v. Makin (2022) limited the ability of governments to exclude religious institutions from generally available public-benefit programs solely because of their religious character or activities.
These decisions contributed to a legal environment in which religious liberty increasingly involves not only freedom from direct government interference but also questions about equal access to government programs.
Employment and Workplace Accommodation
Employment law provides one of the most important settings for religious accommodation.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination and generally requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious practices unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
In Groff v. DeJoy (2023), the Supreme Court strengthened the standard employers must satisfy before refusing religious accommodation. The Court rejected the longstanding interpretation that employers could deny an accommodation based on more than a minimal cost and instead required a showing of substantial increased costs in relation to the employer's business.
Religious organizations also possess statutory employment exemptions. Title VII permits qualifying religious organizations to prefer employees of their own religion in some circumstances.
A separate constitutional doctrine, known as the ministerial exception, protects religious organizations from some employment-discrimination claims involving employees who perform important religious functions. The Supreme Court formally recognized the doctrine in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (2012) and broadened its application in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020).
These doctrines create ongoing disputes about how far institutional religious autonomy should extend when religious organizations employ people whose jobs overlap with activities regulated by civil-rights laws.
LGBTQ Rights and Public Accommodations
Some of the most visible religious-exemption disputes involve conflicts between religious objections and laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.
Wedding services became a major arena for these disputes following legalization of same-sex marriage. Religious business owners sometimes argued that participating in same-sex weddings would violate their beliefs, while civil-rights advocates argued that commercial businesses generally should not be permitted to deny services protected by public-accommodations laws.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the Supreme Court ruled narrowly for a baker who objected to creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, emphasizing that government officials must remain neutral toward religion when enforcing nondiscrimination laws.
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), the Court held that Colorado could not compel a website designer to create expressive wedding material contrary to her beliefs. The decision rested primarily on freedom of speech rather than a general religious exemption from public-accommodations laws.
The broader dispute remains unresolved in many contexts. Religious-liberty advocates argue that individuals should not be compelled to participate in conduct or expression contrary to their faith. Civil-rights organizations argue that broad exemptions can allow discrimination against LGBTQ people and other protected groups.
Academic research has also examined how courts define harm in these cases and how religious freedom, equality, dignity, and nondiscrimination are weighed against one another.
Foster Care, Adoption, and Social Services
Religious exemptions also affect foster-care and adoption programs, particularly when faith-based agencies receive government funding.
Several states have adopted laws allowing religiously affiliated child-placement agencies to decline services that conflict with their religious beliefs. Disputes frequently involve agencies unwilling to place children with same-sex couples or individuals whose religious beliefs differ from those of the agency.
Supporters of exemptions argue that faith-based agencies should not be forced to violate their religious principles as a condition of participating in child-welfare programs.
Opponents argue that government-funded programs should serve qualified families without discrimination and that exemption policies may affect LGBTQ parents, LGBTQ children, and people belonging to minority religions.
Research in this area has examined whether nondiscrimination requirements affect the number or effectiveness of faith-based agencies and whether exemptions themselves affect the interests of children in the foster-care system.
Education and Title IX
Religious educational institutions receive significant exemptions under federal civil-rights law.
Title IX generally prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, but Congress included an exemption for educational institutions controlled by religious organizations when compliance would conflict with their religious tenets.
This exemption has generated controversy as religious colleges have adopted policies concerning sexual conduct, same-sex relationships, gender identity, housing, employment, and student organizations.
LGBTQ students have challenged the exemption and its application, arguing that federal funding should not support discriminatory practices. Religious institutions and religious-liberty organizations argue that requiring religious colleges to abandon faith-based standards would interfere with religious autonomy.
Federal courts have continued to recognize the statutory exemption. Litigation nevertheless continues over its constitutional limits and the relationship between government funding, religious institutional autonomy, and civil-rights protections.
Religious accommodation disputes have also reached public elementary and secondary education, including conflicts over curriculum materials, parental rights, religious objections, and policies concerning transgender students.
Health Care, Contraception, and Conscience Protections
Health care has produced some of the most consequential disputes over religious exemptions.
Federal law contains several conscience protections for individuals and institutions that object to participating in abortion, sterilization, or certain other medical procedures. The Church Amendments and related federal statutes protect qualifying health-care professionals and institutions from some forms of discrimination based on refusal to perform or assist with these procedures.
The Affordable Care Act's contraceptive-coverage requirement produced another major series of religious-liberty disputes. Federal regulations established exemptions and accommodations for churches, religious organizations, and eventually other employers with religious or moral objections.
Hobby Lobby expanded RFRA protection to certain private companies whose owners objected to contraceptive coverage. Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020) subsequently upheld federal authority to create broad religious and moral exemptions from the contraceptive mandate.
Similar conflicts have arisen over abortion coverage, medical aid in dying, reproductive-health services, and LGBTQ nondiscrimination requirements for health-care providers.
Supporters of conscience exemptions argue that medical professionals and religious institutions should not be forced to participate in procedures they consider morally wrong. Critics argue that broad exemptions may restrict patients' access to otherwise lawful medical services, especially when religious institutions dominate health-care markets in particular communities.
Vaccination, Public Health, and Religious Exemptions
Vaccination requirements illustrate the tension between individual religious liberty and government's responsibility to protect public health.
States historically adopted different approaches to religious exemptions from childhood vaccination requirements. Some provide broad exemptions, while others restrict or eliminate them.
COVID-19 vaccination mandates created a new generation of exemption litigation. Courts examined whether governments and employers must provide religious accommodations and whether systems allowing secular exceptions while denying comparable religious exceptions violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Researchers have also examined whether claimed objections are genuinely theological, whether courts should attempt to evaluate religious sincerity, and when public-health concerns justify denying exemptions.
Related disputes involve religious or spiritual exemptions from child-neglect laws. Some state laws historically protected parents who relied on prayer or spiritual healing instead of conventional medical treatment. Critics of these provisions argue that children's health and safety should take precedence over parental religious objections.
Government Contractors and Public Programs
Religious exemptions also affect organizations that receive government contracts or participate in publicly funded programs.
Federal administrations have taken differing approaches to the religious exemptions available to federal contractors. Some policies have interpreted exemptions broadly, while later administrations have narrowed or rescinded those interpretations.
Similar disputes arise when religious organizations participate in education, foster care, social services, health care, and other publicly funded programs.
One major legal question is whether accepting public funding allows government to impose nondiscrimination requirements that might conflict with religious practices.
Another is whether excluding a religious organization from a generally available government program because of its religious identity or activities violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Supreme Court decisions concerning public benefits increasingly restrict exclusions based simply on religious status, while leaving difficult questions about government-funded religious conduct and civil-rights requirements unresolved.
State Religious Freedom Laws
After City of Boerne v. Flores prevented federal RFRA from governing state and local governments generally, many states adopted their own religious-freedom statutes or constitutional protections.
State RFRAs typically require heightened scrutiny when government substantially burdens religious exercise. Their precise language and application vary considerably.
These statutes have become important in disputes involving business regulation, health care, education, vaccination, land use, employment, and LGBTQ rights.
Supporters describe state RFRAs as safeguards against unnecessary government interference with religion. Critics have argued that broad provisions can permit individuals or organizations to seek exemptions from laws designed to protect third parties from discrimination or other harms.
Consequently, state religious-freedom legislation has become an important part of the wider debate over the meaning and limits of religious accommodation.
Third-Party Harms and the Limits of Exemptions
One of the central legal and philosophical questions surrounding religious exemptions is whether accommodating one person's religious belief may impose significant burdens on another person.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that religious liberty is not unlimited. In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Court held that parental religious authority did not provide unlimited power to expose children to risks that the state could legitimately regulate.
In United States v. Lee (1982), the Court denied an Amish employer an exemption from Social Security taxes, concluding that uniform participation was necessary to administer the national system.
In Estate of Thornton v. Caldor (1985), the Court invalidated a law providing employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because the law imposed significant burdens on employers and other workers.
Contemporary scholarship continues this debate. Some scholars argue that strong religious exemptions are essential to preserving freedom of conscience in a pluralistic society. Others contend that exemptions become constitutionally or morally problematic when they transfer substantial costs to employees, patients, customers, students, children, or other third parties.
This conflict is particularly important where religious objections intersect with civil-rights protections.
Christian Nationalism and Competing Conceptions of Religious Liberty
Christian nationalism adds a political and sociological dimension to religious-exemption debates.
Research on Christian nationalism generally examines beliefs linking Christianity with American national identity and the proper role of Christianity in government and public institutions. Survey research has found that Americans vary substantially in their support for such ideas.
Some scholars and advocacy organizations argue that parts of the contemporary Christian nationalist movement have promoted a conception of religious liberty that emphasizes exemptions for conservative Christian individuals and institutions from regulations concerning sexuality, reproductive health, education, and employment.
Research has also found relationships between Christian nationalist attitudes and how respondents prioritize religious freedom relative to other constitutional rights and social concerns.
However, religious exemptions should not be treated as synonymous with Christian nationalism. Religious accommodation predates the contemporary Christian nationalist movement by centuries, and American religious-liberty law protects minority religions as well as Christian organizations.
Many landmark religious-exemption cases involved minority faiths whose practices differed substantially from mainstream Christian norms. The legal debate therefore involves a broader question about how a religiously diverse society should balance conscience, equality, government authority, and the rights of people affected by another person's exemption.
A Changing Supreme Court Doctrine
The Supreme Court's approach to religious liberty has changed considerably over time.
Earlier doctrine often accepted neutral laws that incidentally burdened religious practices. Later decisions created stronger protections, followed by the restrictive rule announced in Employment Division v. Smith.
Congress responded to Smith with RFRA, while subsequent Supreme Court decisions strengthened protections through statutory interpretation and constitutional doctrine.
Recent cases involving public benefits, employment accommodation, government neutrality, and religious institutions indicate a stronger judicial protection of religious exercise in several areas.
At the same time, the Court has not established an unlimited right to exemptions. Government interests, burdens on third parties, the structure of particular statutes, freedom of speech, institutional autonomy, and nondiscrimination protections all influence outcomes.
The result is a complex legal framework rather than a single rule governing when religious objections prevail.
Conclusion
Religious exemptions occupy a central position in American debates about religious liberty because they force courts and policymakers to decide not simply whether people may hold religious beliefs, but when those beliefs justify exceptions from laws that apply to everyone else.
The historical record shows substantial protection for religious conscience alongside longstanding limits when exemptions threaten significant public interests or impose burdens on others. Congress and state legislatures have supplemented constitutional protections through RFRA statutes, conscience clauses, institutional exemptions, and specialized protections in employment, education, land use, prisons, and health care.
In recent decades, disputes over LGBTQ rights, reproductive health, public education, vaccination, government funding, and workplace requirements have made religious exemptions increasingly prominent in American political life.
Christian nationalism intersects with these debates because contemporary arguments about America's religious identity, Christian influence in public institutions, and the meaning of religious liberty often shape conflicts over exemptions. Yet the broader legal tradition of religious accommodation is neither exclusively Christian nor exclusively nationalist.
The continuing challenge is determining how a pluralistic society can protect genuine religious exercise while also protecting civil rights, public health, equality before the law, and people who may bear the consequences of exemptions granted to others.
Constitutional and Statutory Foundations
1. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 30, 2023
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis held that Colorado could not compel a website designer to create expressive material for same-sex weddings contrary to her beliefs, relying primarily on free-speech doctrine.
2. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 29, 2023
Groff v. DeJoy strengthened the standard governing workplace religious accommodation, holding that employers must demonstrate substantial increased costs rather than merely a de minimis burden before denying an accommodation.
3. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 21, 2022
Carson v. Makin held that Maine could not exclude religious schools from a generally available tuition-assistance program simply because they provide religious instruction.
4. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | March 24, 2022
Ramirez v. Collier applied RLUIPA to religious practices at an execution and illustrates the breadth of modern statutory religious-accommodation protections.
5. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | July 8, 2020
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania upheld federal authority to create broad religious and moral exemptions from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive-coverage requirement.
6. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 4, 2018
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that government enforcement of nondiscrimination law must remain neutral toward an individual's religious beliefs.
7. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 26, 2017
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer held that government generally may not exclude an otherwise eligible organization from a public benefit solely because of its religious status.
8. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | January 20, 2015
Holt v. Hobbs applied RLUIPA's strict-scrutiny standard to a Muslim prisoner's request for a religious exemption from a prison grooming rule.
9. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | June 30, 2014
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected closely held corporations whose owners objected on religious grounds to providing certain contraceptive coverage required by federal regulations.
10. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | January 11, 2012
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC formally recognized the ministerial exception shielding religious organizations from some employment-discrimination claims involving ministers.
The Court unanimously applied RFRA to allow a religious organization to use a controlled substance in its ceremonies because the federal government had not justified denying the exemption.
12. | U.S. Supreme Court | Legal Information Institute | May 31, 2005
Cutter v. Wilkinson upheld the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and explained when government accommodation of religion is permissible under the Establishment Clause.
13. | U.S. Department of Justice | Office of the Solicitor General | 2005
The federal government's Cutter brief explains the statutory and constitutional arguments supporting broad protection of religious exercise under RLUIPA.
14. | U.S. Supreme Court | City of Boerne v. Flores | June 25, 1997
The Court held that Congress could not use RFRA to impose its religious-exemption standard directly on state and local governments.
15. | U.S. Congress | Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 | November 16, 1993
The federal RFRA restored a statutory compelling-interest test for federal government actions that substantially burden religious exercise.
16. | U.S. Supreme Court | Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah | June 11, 1993
The Court struck down ordinances directed at Santería animal-sacrifice practices, holding that laws targeting religious conduct require the most demanding constitutional scrutiny.
17. | U.S. Supreme Court | Employment Division v. Smith | April 17, 1990
Smith held that the Free Exercise Clause ordinarily does not require religious exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability, prompting Congress to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
18. | U.S. Supreme Court | Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security | March 29, 1989
The Court ruled that religious-exercise protections do not depend on membership in an organized religious denomination.
19. | U.S. Supreme Court | Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission | February 25, 1987
The Court held that a worker who adopted religious practices after being hired could not be denied unemployment benefits merely because those practices conflicted with her work schedule.
20. | U.S. Supreme Court | Thomas v. Review Board | April 6, 1981
The Court held that Indiana could not deny unemployment benefits to a Jehovah's Witness who quit a job because his religious beliefs prohibited participation in weapons production.
21. | U.S. Supreme Court | Wisconsin v. Yoder | May 15, 1972
The Court allowed Amish parents a religious exemption from Wisconsin's compulsory school-attendance law after the eighth grade, illustrating the constitutional protection historically afforded some religious practices.
22. | U.S. Supreme Court | Sherbert v. Verner | June 17, 1963
Sherbert v. Verner established a demanding constitutional test for government actions that substantially burden religious exercise, becoming an important foundation for later religious-exemption doctrine.
23. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current statute
Text of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, requiring the federal government to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise using strict scrutiny.
24. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current statute
Text of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which provides heightened protection for religious exercise in land-use disputes and prisons.
25. | U.S. Department of Justice | Civil Rights Division | n.d.
DOJ explains the protections of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the federal government's role in enforcing religious-accommodation rights.
26. | U.S. Department of Justice | Civil Rights Division | n.d.
DOJ reproduces and explains provisions of RLUIPA, including language concerning government benefits, exemptions, and the Establishment Clause.
Christian Nationalism, Rights, and Religious Liberty
27. | Alessandro Terenzoni | Americans United for Separation of Church and State | July 2, 2026
Critiques the Religious Liberty Commission's 2026 draft report and argues that its proposals reflect Christian nationalist approaches to church-state separation and religious exemptions.
28. | Religion News Service | Religion News Service | May 11, 2026
Reports on proposals before the federal Religious Liberty Commission involving religious exemptions in employment, education, health care, and other areas.
29. | Amanda Hollis-Brusky | UCLA Law Review | April 15, 2026
Argues that conservative Christian legal movements have influenced contemporary Supreme Court approaches to religious liberty, church-state separation, and related constitutional doctrine.
30. | PRRI | Public Religion Research Institute | February 17, 2026
Summarizes PRRI's 2025 American Values Atlas findings concerning the distribution of Christian-nationalist beliefs across states, parties, and religious communities.
31. | Chagai Schlesinger | BYU Law Review | 2025
Examines judicial deference to religious claims and argues that courts should distinguish claims of individual conscience from claims involving institutional religious autonomy.
32. | Gregory A. Smith et al. | Pew Research Center | February 26, 2025
Provides contemporary survey context for religious differences over LGBTQ rights and abortion, two policy areas central to many religious-exemption disputes.
33. | PRRI | Public Religion Research Institute | October 30, 2024
Examines Americans who reject or remain skeptical of Christian-nationalist ideas and compares attitudes across religious and demographic groups.
34. | PRRI | Public Religion Research Institute | February 28, 2024
Nationwide survey maps Christian-nationalist beliefs across the states and provides demographic and religious context for contemporary religious-liberty debates.
35. | Joshua T. Davis, Samuel L. Perry and Joshua B. Grubbs | Sociology of Religion | May 8, 2023
Using national survey data, the authors find that Christian nationalism predicts differences in how Americans prioritize religious freedom and several other constitutional rights.
36. | PRRI | Public Religion Research Institute | February 8, 2023
National survey examines Christian nationalism and its relationship to religious identity, political attitudes, pluralism, democracy and cultural conflict.
37. | Center for American Progress | Center for American Progress | 2022
Interview and analysis connecting Christian nationalism with contemporary debates over religious freedom, COVID-era exemptions, pluralism, and individual liberty.
38. | PRRI | Public Religion Research Institute | 2021
Survey examines perceptions that religious liberty is threatened and how views differ by religious tradition, political identity and attitudes toward discrimination.
39. | Katherine Stewart interview | Americans United for Separation of Church and State | 2020
Discusses the argument that Christian nationalist organizations have reframed religious liberty to include broad exemptions from LGBTQ and other civil-rights protections.
LGBTQ Rights, Public Accommodations, and Same-Sex Marriage
40. | Kyle C. Velte | William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice | 2024
"Identity and Procedural Subordination in LGBTQ Religious Exemption Cases" explicitly connects the Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop, Fulton, and 303 Creative decisions with debates over white Christian nationalism.
41. | Research article | Sexuality Research and Social Policy | 2024
Analyzes anti-LGBTQ legislation and identifies religious-exemption measures as one recurring legislative strategy, including measures involving health care and adoption.
42. | Emily Kazyak, Kelsy Burke, Maia Behrendt, Marissa Oliver | Law & Social Inquiry | April 24, 2023
Analysis of fifty federal religious-exemption cases involving LGBT rights, examining how courts conceptualize harm, religious freedom, same-sex marriage, and discrimination.
43. | Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law | Georgetown Law | 2023
Reviews religious exemptions involving employment, public accommodations, health care, housing, LGBTQ rights, RFRA, and the ministerial exception.
44. | Research article | Sex Education | 2023
Study of state legislation finds religious-exemption provisions appearing in bills addressing LGBTQ people in adoption, health care, education, and related fields.
45. | SCOTUSblog | 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case file | 2022–2023
Collection of briefs, filings, arguments, and decisions concerning whether Colorado could apply its public-accommodations law to expressive wedding-related services.
46. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2022
Documents state religious-exemption legislation affecting health care, LGBTQ people, adoption, foster care, and education.
47. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2021
Argues that broad religious exemptions for government-funded social-service providers can also affect members of minority religions.
48. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2021
Tracks state proposals involving RFRAs, health-care conscience exemptions, adoption and foster-care exemptions, and student organizations.
49. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2019
State-by-state record of legislation involving LGBTQ rights, Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, conscience measures, and related exemptions.
50. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2018
Presents the ACLU's argument against religious exemptions allowing taxpayer-supported foster and adoption agencies to decline same-sex couples or families of different faiths.
51. | Heritage Foundation | Heritage Foundation | 2018
Presents a conservative argument that sexual-orientation and gender-identity nondiscrimination laws inadequately protect religious liberty and conscience.
52. | ACLU and coalition partners | American Civil Liberties Union | December 12, 2017
Coalition letter opposing proposed Higher Education Act provisions that would broaden exemptions for religious colleges and student organizations.
53. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | October 6, 2017
Critiques Department of Justice religious-liberty guidance that the ACLU argued could broaden exemptions from nondiscrimination requirements.
54. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2017
Explains the civil-rights argument against allowing commercial businesses to claim religious exemptions from LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws.
55. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | September 28, 2016
Survey examines public attitudes toward religious exemptions involving same-sex weddings, contraceptive insurance coverage, and transgender rights.
56. | James Esseks | American Civil Liberties Union | January 15, 2016
Discusses litigation involving a New York wedding venue whose owners sought a religious exemption from a state public-accommodations law.
57. | Elizabeth Sepper | Saint Louis University Law Journal | 2016
Examines religious exemptions in state public-accommodations laws and disputes involving businesses, religious organizations, same-sex weddings, and nondiscrimination requirements.
58. | ACLU | American Civil Liberties Union | 2016
Tracks state legislation involving nondiscrimination protections, religious-exemption proposals, and other LGBTQ-related measures.
59. | Louise Melling | American Civil Liberties Union | July 17, 2014
Critiques the expansion of religious exemptions after Hobby Lobby and discusses possible effects on women and LGBTQ people.
60. | David Masci | Pew Research Center | November 20, 2013
Surveys statutory protections for clergy and religious organizations in states that legalized same-sex marriage.
61. | Eric Rassbach | Becket Fund for Religious Liberty | March 23, 2013
Presents religious-liberty arguments concerning potential conflicts between same-sex marriage laws and religious individuals and organizations.
62. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | December 7, 2012
Provides historical background on conflicts between marriage equality, nondiscrimination requirements, and claims for religious exemptions.
63. | Taylor Flynn | Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy | 2010
Examines proposals for broad conscience exemptions from nondiscrimination requirements connected to same-sex marriage and commercial services.
64. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | June 3, 2010
Explains competing arguments over conscience protections and civil-rights laws when professionals seek exemptions involving gay and lesbian clients.
65. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | May 21, 2009
Explains disputes involving marriage, adoption, housing, employment, wedding businesses, religious institutions, and claims for exemptions from nondiscrimination laws.
66. | Becket Fund | Becket Fund for Religious Liberty | n.d.
Describes the case of a Wyoming judge who said religious beliefs prevented her from performing same-sex marriages and the resulting dispute over judicial duties and religious accommodation.
Foster Care, Adoption, and Social Services
67. | Nate Raymond | Reuters | July 24, 2025
Reports on an appellate decision involving a Christian prospective adoptive parent who challenged Oregon requirements concerning support for children's sexual orientation and gender identity.
68. | Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law | Georgetown Law | 2024
Updated review of adoption and foster-care law addressing sexual orientation, gender identity, family rights, government regulation, and placement policies.
69. | Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law | Georgetown Law | 2023
Reviews adoption and foster-care law, including disputes involving religious agencies, LGBTQ parents and children, and government regulation.
70. | Daria Sidoruk | Family Court Review | January 2022
Analyzes disputes involving federally funded faith-based adoption agencies that decline LGBTQ applicants and considers proposed federal nondiscrimination legislation.
71. | Netta Barak-Corren | Journal of Empirical Legal Studies | 2022
Uses twenty years of child-welfare data to investigate whether nondiscrimination rules affecting faith-based placement agencies change outcomes for foster children.
72. | Adrianne M. Spoto | New York University Law Review | April 2021
Examines state laws protecting faith-based child-welfare agencies that decline services because of religious beliefs and argues that some exemptions create Establishment Clause problems.
73. | Jordan Blair Woods | Minnesota Law Review | 2019
Examines religious exemptions in child welfare and argues that debates over prospective LGBTQ parents should also account for LGBTQ children within the foster-care system.
74. | Allison L. McQueen | Notre Dame Law Review | 2018
Examines Michigan's law allowing faith-based adoption agencies to decline services that conflict with their religious beliefs and competing arguments over LGBTQ equality.
75. | James G. Dwyer | William & Mary Law School | 1996
"The Children We Abandon" analyzes religious exemptions in child welfare, medical care, and education from the perspective of children's rights.
Education, Title IX, and Religious Institutions
76. | Americans United | Americans United for Separation of Church and State | August 28, 2026
Examines free-exercise and free-speech challenges by teachers and parents to California policies concerning transgender students.
77. | Americans United | Americans United for Separation of Church and State | 2025
Discusses litigation over parents seeking religious accommodation from public-school curriculum materials containing LGBTQ characters.
78. | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Justia | August 30, 2024
Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education upheld dismissal of LGBTQ students' constitutional challenge to Title IX's exemption for qualifying religious colleges.
79. | Sydney Smith | Southern California Law Review | July 18, 2024
Examines Title IX religious exemptions and the tax-exempt status of religious colleges with policies affecting LGBTQ students.
80. | Nick Anderson | The Washington Post | January 13, 2023
Reports on litigation by LGBTQ students challenging federal religious exemptions granted to Christian colleges.
81. | Columbia Undergraduate Law Review | Columbia University | 2022
Reviews constitutional arguments surrounding Title IX's statutory exemption for religiously controlled educational institutions.
82. | U.S. Department of Education | Department of Education | March 8, 2021
Official explanation of Title IX's statutory religious exemption for educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.
83. | U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | 2020
Includes federal correspondence concerning religious exemptions, LGBTQ students, Title IX enforcement, and related civil-rights questions.
84. | Religion News Service | Religion News Service | September 13, 2019
Examines disputes involving Christian student organizations, LGBTQ policies, university recognition, and religious freedom.
85. | Elise S. Faust | BYU Law Review | 2018
"Who Decides? The Title IX Religious Exemption and Administrative Authority" analyzes the statutory exemption and federal administrative authority over religious colleges.
86. | U.S. Department of Education | Department of Education | December 31, 2016
Archive documenting educational institutions that sought formal assurances concerning religious exemptions from Title IX.
87. | U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | Current
Federal resource explaining how religious educational institutions may invoke Title IX's statutory exemption when compliance conflicts with religious tenets.
88. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current
Statutory text of Title IX, including the exemption for educational institutions controlled by religious organizations when compliance would conflict with religious tenets.
89. | U.S. Department of Education | Code of Federal Regulations | Current
Federal regulation governing the Title IX exemption available to qualifying religious educational institutions.
90. | U.S. Department of Education | Department of Education | n.d.
Explains how Title IX's religious exemption can affect employment practices at qualifying religious educational institutions.
Health Care, Reproductive Health, and Conscience Clauses
91. | Anne Stine Zimmerman | American Bar Association | 2026
Examines Catholic health-care organizations seeking broader conscience exemptions from New York's medical-aid-in-dying requirements.
92. | Religion News Service | Religion News Service | April 10, 2026
Reports on Catholic nursing-home providers seeking religious exemptions from New York LGBTQ nondiscrimination requirements.
93. | Reuters | Reuters | August 13, 2025
Reports on a federal court decision concerning the broad contraceptive-coverage exemptions originally adopted during the first Trump administration.
94. | John Kruzel | Reuters | June 16, 2025
Reports on the Supreme Court's decision directing reconsideration of a Catholic challenge to New York's abortion-coverage requirement and the scope of its religious exemption.
Provides a current overview of contraceptive-coverage requirements, religious exemptions, accommodations, and litigation involving employers.
96. | Reuters | Reuters | May 21, 2024
Reports on a New York religious-liberty challenge by Catholic organizations seeking a broader exemption from abortion-coverage requirements.
97. | Reuters | Reuters | April 15, 2024
Covers disputes over the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, abortion-related workplace accommodations, and objections raised by some religious organizations.
98. | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | HHS | 2024
Official description of federal conscience protections for health-care providers and others who object to certain services on religious or moral grounds.
Discusses conscience exemptions in faith-based Medicaid networks and their possible effects on access to reproductive-health services.
100. | KFF | KFF | 2015
Examines contraceptive insurance coverage and the practical effects of religious exemptions and accommodations.
101. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | March 20, 2014
Explains RFRA's role in the Hobby Lobby litigation and the legal standards governing religious objections to contraceptive coverage.
102. | KFF | KFF | 2014
Reviews the development of Affordable Care Act contraceptive requirements and accommodations created for religious employers.
103. | Pew Research Center | Pew Research Center | February 1, 2013
Explains the Affordable Care Act contraception controversy and competing arguments over exemptions for churches, religious nonprofits, and private employers.
104. | Congressional Research Service | EveryCRSReport | 2012
Legal analysis of religious exemptions from mandatory health-care programs, including the Affordable Care Act contraceptive requirement.
105. | U.S. Congress | Church Amendments | 1973
Legislative materials associated with federal conscience protections adopted after Roe v. Wade for individuals and health-care institutions objecting to abortion or sterilization.
106. | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | HHS Office for Civil Rights | Current
Federal overview of statutory conscience protections affecting abortion, sterilization, assisted suicide, and certain other medical procedures.
107. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current
Text of the Church Amendments protecting certain health-care personnel and institutions from government discrimination related to abortion and sterilization participation.
108. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current
Federal statute protecting health-care entities from certain discrimination based on refusal to provide abortion training or services.
109. | U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops | USCCB | n.d.
Presents the Catholic bishops' argument for conscience protections and religious exemptions involving contraception, sterilization, and abortion-related services.
Employment and Religious Organizations
110. | American Bar Association | ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law | 2025
Examines religious-discrimination claims and defenses involving vaccination, sexuality, gender, workplace policies, and contemporary culture-war disputes.
111. | Robert Roberts | Review of Public Personnel Administration | October 15, 2024
Reviews dozens of lower-court decisions following Groff to assess how the new undue-hardship standard is changing religious-accommodation litigation.
112. | Tashlin Lakhani, David Sherwyn and Paul Wagner | Cornell Hospitality Quarterly | January 29, 2024
Examines how Groff v. DeJoy changed employers' obligations to accommodate religious practices and predicts significant effects on workplace accommodation disputes.
113. | George Wright | Texas A&M Law Review | 2024
Examines the consequences of the Supreme Court's strengthened workplace religious-accommodation standard and the difficulty of balancing employees' religious claims with burdens on employers and coworkers.
114. | Diana Chandler | Baptist Press | December 7, 2023
Reports from a Southern Baptist perspective on conflicting court decisions involving Christian employers, LGBTQ employees, Title VII, and religious exemptions.
115. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | January 15, 2021
Comprehensive federal guidance on religious discrimination and accommodation under Title VII.
116. | U.S. Supreme Court | Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru | July 8, 2020
The Court broadened application of the ministerial exception by focusing on an employee's religious functions rather than formal ministerial titles.
117. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | March 6, 2014
Explains workplace religious accommodation requirements and notes the Supreme Court's later Groff standard for undue hardship.
118. | U.S. Supreme Court | Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos | June 24, 1987
The Court upheld Title VII's exemption allowing religious organizations to make religion-based employment decisions even for some nonreligious jobs.
119. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | Current
Explains federal protection for religious observance and accommodation in employment and circumstances in which employers may establish undue hardship.
120. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | Current
Full federal statutory framework governing employment discrimination, including religious discrimination and accommodation requirements.
121. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | Current
Questions and answers addressing prayer, religious clothing, scheduling, proselytizing, objections to workplace requirements, and reasonable accommodation.
122. | Legal Information Institute | Cornell Law School | Current
Overview of the ministerial exception protecting qualifying religious institutions from some employment-discrimination claims.
123. | U.S. Congress | Legal Information Institute | Current statute
Title VII contains statutory exemptions allowing qualifying religious organizations to prefer employees of a particular religion.
124. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | n.d.
Practical guidance for employers evaluating requests for workplace religious accommodations.
125. | Becket Fund | Becket Fund for Religious Liberty | n.d.
Describes litigation involving a North Carolina magistrate's religious objection to participating in same-sex marriages.
126. | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | EEOC | n.d.
Includes EEOC litigation over employees who sought religious exemptions from employer vaccination requirements.
Federal Contractors, Public Benefits, and Government Programs
127. | U.S. Department of Justice | Department of Justice | July 23, 2026
Updated federal religious-liberty guidance addressing RFRA, government programs, contracting, employment, parental rights, and recent Supreme Court precedent.
128. | Steve Karnowski | Associated Press | 2025
Reports on a federal ruling invalidating Minnesota restrictions that excluded religious colleges requiring faith statements from a publicly funded dual-enrollment program.
129. | U.S. Department of Labor | Department of Labor | February 28, 2023
Describes rescission of a federal-contractor rule that had broadened interpretation of the religious exemption in Executive Order 11246.
130. | U.S. Department of Labor | Department of Labor | December 7, 2020
Documentation and reporting concerning expansion of religious defenses for federal contractors under the 2020 OFCCP rule.
131. | U.S. Department of Labor | Department of Labor | 2020
Collection of materials concerning the 2020 rule expanding religious exemptions available to qualifying federal contractors.
132. | U.S. Supreme Court | Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue | June 30, 2020
The Court held that Montana could not exclude religious schools from a scholarship program available to private schools generally.
133. | U.S. Supreme Court | Bob Jones University v. United States | May 24, 1983
The Court held that religious beliefs did not entitle racially discriminatory private schools to federal tax-exempt status when their policies conflicted with an overriding public policy against racial discrimination.
134. | U.S. Supreme Court | McDaniel v. Paty | April 19, 1978
The Court invalidated Tennessee's prohibition against ministers serving as constitutional-convention delegates, holding that government could not condition political participation on abandoning religious office.
State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
135. | Balrina Ahluwalia | FindLaw | June 17, 2026
Overview of state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and how states have established heightened protection for religious exercise after the Supreme Court limited the federal RFRA's application to states.
136. | Washington State Legislature | Washington Legislature | 2023
Example of contemporary state legislation addressing religious freedom and the limits of exemptions from generally applicable laws.
137. | National Conference of State Legislatures | NCSL | Current
Tracks state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and related statutes adopted after the Supreme Court limited the reach of federal RFRA.
138. | Utah Legislature | Utah Code | Current
Utah's statutory religious-freedom protections illustrate state-level approaches to claims that government substantially burdens religious exercise.
139. | Texas Legislature | Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act | Current
Texas law requires strict scrutiny for certain government actions substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion.
140. | Arizona Legislature | Arizona Revised Statutes | Current
Arizona statutes contain state religious-freedom protections that have figured in disputes over business regulation and conscience claims.
141. | Pennsylvania General Assembly | Religious Freedom Protection Act | Current
Pennsylvania's statute provides state-level standards for government actions substantially burdening religious exercise.
142. | Washington Legislature | Child abuse statutes | Current
State child-protection law illustrates how legislatures sometimes distinguish religious practices from conduct constituting abuse or neglect.
Vaccination and Public Health
143. | Zalman Rothschild | Harvard Law Review | May 2026
Examines the Supreme Court's treatment of vaccine mandates lacking religious exemptions in light of newer religious-liberty precedent.
144. | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services | HHS | September 4, 2025
Announces federal action emphasizing compliance with state religious and conscience exemptions within the Vaccines for Children program.
145. | Leah Willingham | Associated Press | 2025
Reports on West Virginia's dispute over whether state religious-freedom protections require religious exemptions from childhood immunization requirements.
146. | Academic article | Religions | 2023
"How Well Do Religious Exemptions Apply to Mandates for COVID-19 Vaccines?" examines religious objections to vaccine mandates and includes discussion of Christian nationalism.
147. | Dorit R. Reiss | Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics | January 10, 2022
Full journal presentation of an analysis of vaccine mandates, free exercise, children, and religious exemptions.
148. | University of Chicago Divinity School | Sightings | 2022
Explores the difficulty of distinguishing genuinely religious vaccine objections from political or personal objections framed in religious language.
149. | American University Law Review | American University | 2022
Examines vaccine mandates and the Supreme Court's developing Free Exercise doctrine concerning secular and religious exemptions.
150. | Ronald J. Colombo | Western New England Law Review | 2022
Analyzes when religious-exemption procedures at colleges themselves become discriminatory toward particular religions or forms of belief.
151. | Ben Davisson | Saint Louis University Law Journal Online | February 24, 2021
Argues that some COVID-19 vaccination mandates may constitutionally require religious exemptions.
152. | Dorit R. Reiss | Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics | 2021
Analyzes whether the Supreme Court should require religious exemptions from vaccine mandates and considers public-health and third-party harms.
153. | Rita Swan and others | Current Pediatrics Reports | 2020
Reviews faith-based medical neglect, immunization exemptions, child health, and public-policy arguments surrounding religious accommodations.
154. | Marie Killmond | Columbia Law Review | 2017
Compares vaccine exemptions with other religious exemptions and examines the legal justification for treating vaccination differently.
155. | Aleksandra Sandstrom | Pew Research Center | August 12, 2016
Surveys state child-neglect statutes that include religious or spiritual-treatment exemptions and describes important differences among the laws.
156. | Dorit Rubinstein Reiss | Hastings Law Journal | 2014
Examines the use and alleged abuse of religious exemptions from school immunization requirements.
157. | James G. Dwyer | Notre Dame Law Review | November 2000
Examines statutory religious-treatment exemptions from child medical-neglect laws and evaluates their implications for children's interests.
158. | J.C. Merrick | Issues in Law & Medicine | Winter 1994
Reviews Christian Science healing cases, statutory exemptions, parental rights, religious exercise, and constitutional notice requirements.
159. | Donna K. LeClair | University of Dayton Law Review | 1987
Examines whether religious-treatment and faith-healing exemptions should excuse parents who fail to obtain necessary medical treatment for children.
160. | Jesse Merriam and Robert W. Tuttle | Pew Research Center | August 31, 2009
Explores conflicts among parental religious liberty, criminal law, medical treatment, and children's rights in faith-healing cases.
161. | Shawn Francis Peters | Oxford University Press | 2008
Chapter from When Prayer Fails documenting religion-based medical neglect and the legal exemptions historically available to parents relying exclusively on spiritual healing.
162. | Shawn Francis Peters | Oxford University Press | 2008
Examines prosecutions involving Christian Scientists and the difficulties created when state statutes provide spiritual-healing exemptions from neglect laws.
Third-Party Harms, Theory, and Historical Scholarship
163. | Luray Buckner | Notre Dame Law Review | 2022
Examines the Supreme Court's "most favored nation" approach to religious exemptions following pandemic-era Free Exercise cases.
164. | Austin T. Hetrick | Virginia Law Review | April 1, 2021
Uses historical evidence to examine whether the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause included exemptions from generally applicable laws.
165. | Stephanie H. Barclay | Notre Dame Law Review | 2020
"The Historical Origins of Judicial Religious Exemptions" argues that court-created exemptions have deeper historical roots than often assumed.
166. | Micah Schwartzman | University of Chicago Law Review | December 19, 2017
Questions whether religion should receive forms of constitutional protection unavailable to comparable secular conscientious beliefs.
167. | Christopher C. Lund | Virginia Law Review | May 1, 2017
Defends special legal protection for religion while examining objections to religious exemptions from generally applicable laws.
168. | Amy J. Sepinwall | University of Chicago Law Review | April 20, 2017
Examines claims that religious objectors become morally complicit when required to facilitate conduct they consider immoral.
169. | Christopher C. Lund | Notre Dame Law Review | 2016
Examines when religious exemptions may create constitutionally significant burdens for third parties, with Hobby Lobby as a central example.
170. | Mark L. Rienzi | Harvard Law Review | March 2014
Presents a defense of religious accommodation and evaluates philosophical arguments for and against treating religion as legally distinctive.
171. | Zoe Robinson | William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal | 2011
Explores how political power and legislative processes influence which religious groups receive statutory exemptions.
172. | Kent Greenawalt | Cardozo Law Review | 2009
Analyzes whether legislative and judicial religious exemptions conflict with principles of equal application of law.
173. | Zoe Robinson | William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal | 2011
Examines how legislative politics and the relative political power of religious groups influence which communities obtain statutory exemptions.
174. | U.S. Supreme Court | Lee v. Weisman | June 24, 1992
Although primarily an Establishment Clause case, the opinions discuss the distinction between government accommodation of private religious exercise and government promotion of religion.
175. | U.S. Supreme Court | Bowen v. Roy | June 11, 1986
The Court rejected a religious objection to the government's use of a Social Security number while addressing circumstances in which government programs burden religious practices.
176. | U.S. Supreme Court | Estate of Thornton v. Caldor | June 26, 1985
The Court invalidated a law granting employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because it imposed significant burdens on employers and other employees.
177. | U.S. Supreme Court | United States v. Lee | February 23, 1982
The Court rejected an Amish employer's request for exemption from Social Security taxes, concluding that administering the national system required uniform participation.
178. | U.S. Supreme Court | Braunfeld v. Brown | May 29, 1961
The Court rejected a Free Exercise challenge to Sunday-closing laws despite burdens imposed on Orthodox Jewish merchants, illustrating limits historically placed on religious exemptions.
179. | U.S. Supreme Court | Prince v. Massachusetts | January 31, 1944
The Court held that parental religious liberty does not create unlimited authority to expose children to risks the state may legitimately regulate.
180. | U.S. Supreme Court | Reynolds v. United States | January 6, 1879
Early Supreme Court decision distinguishing protection of religious belief from immunity for all religiously motivated conduct.
181. | Law, Rights, and Religion Project | Columbia Law School | September 2022
"Parading the Horribles" argues that expanding religious exemptions can impose significant harms on workers, patients, consumers, and civil-rights protections.
