The bill amends Section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1) by adding a new exception: RFRA will not apply where a provision of federal law ‘‘provides for or requires’’ protections that prevent meaningful harm to third parties. The text lists categories (antidiscrimination laws including Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, FMLA, VAWA), wage/benefit and collective‑activity protections, child labor/abuse protections, and access to or coverage for health care items and services; it also exempts the terms of government contracts and the implementation of statutes when refusal would deny the public equal enjoyment of government goods or services.
Separately, the bill narrows the universe of RFRA litigation by amending RFRA’s preclusion clause so that RFRA relief is available only in judicial proceedings to which a government is a party and to obtain relief against that government. Practically, the measure blocks private parties from invoking RFRA as a defense or affirmative claim in private‑party disputes where federal law is designed to prevent harm to others or where government funding, contracts, or programs require compliance.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds an exception to RFRA making it inapplicable to federal laws and their implementation that prevent harm to others, including specified civil‑rights, labor, child‑protection, and health‑access statutes. It also carves out government contracts and federally funded program requirements, and it amends RFRA so that RFRA claims are limited to judicial proceedings in which a government is a party and relief is sought against that government.
Who It Affects
Religiously affiliated service providers and private actors who receive federal funds or operate under federal program requirements, private parties that previously invoked RFRA in disputes with customers or employees, beneficiaries of federal programs (patients, students, program recipients), and government contractors and grant recipients.
Why It Matters
The change curtails RFRA as a private‑party defense to refuse services, information, referrals, or coverage where federal law aims to protect third parties. It realigns RFRA from a broad private‑rights tool to a narrower shield focused on government action, shifting litigation strategy and compliance obligations for providers and contractors who interact with federally protected populations or programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill operates in two linked ways. First, it carves out an explicit exception to RFRA whenever a federal statute or its implementation ‘‘provides for or requires’’ protections that prevent meaningful harm to others.
The enumerated examples are concrete: longstanding civil‑rights statutes (including the Civil Rights Act of 1964), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against Women Act, protections against child labor and abuse, workplace pay/benefit and collective‑activity standards, and any law or program that gives people access to health care items or services. By naming categories and including language about ‘‘implementation,’’ the bill reaches not only express statutory text but also how agencies and contractors apply those laws in practice.
Second, the bill inserts an explicit limitation on who may sue under RFRA. Existing RFRA language that has sometimes been read to authorize private‑party suits is revised so that RFRA claims must be brought in judicial proceedings ‘‘to which a government is a party’’ and to obtain relief against that government.
The practical effect is to deny private parties a standalone RFRA defense or cause of action against other private parties—cases between employers and employees, businesses and customers, or private nonprofits and program beneficiaries—so long as the challenged conduct falls within the newly described exceptions.Taken together, these changes prioritize third‑party protections and the integrity of federal programs when those interests collide with asserted religious objections. The bill does not strip RFRA protections outright; it narrows the contexts in which RFRA can be invoked and routes RFRA challenges primarily through litigation against government actors, rather than private defendants.
That routing makes RFRA a tool to challenge government action that burdens religion, not a broad shield to avoid compliance with federal regimes aimed at protecting others.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds subsection (d) to 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1 making RFRA inapplicable to federal statutes and their implementation when those laws ‘‘provide for or require’’ protections that prevent meaningful harm to others, and it lists categories such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, FMLA, and VAWA.
RFRA cannot be used to refuse or limit access to, information about, referrals for, provision of, or coverage for any health care item or service where a federal law requires or protects such access.
The amendment makes RFRA inapplicable to terms of government contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other awards that require goods, services, functions, or activities be provided to beneficiaries of federally funded programs.
Section 3(c) of RFRA is rewritten so RFRA relief is available only in judicial proceedings to which a government is a party and to obtain relief against that government, effectively precluding RFRA claims between private parties.
The bill bars RFRA defenses where applying RFRA would deny a person the full and equal enjoyment of government‑provided goods, services, benefits, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the "Do No Harm Act." This is a purely nominal provision but signals legislative intent to prioritize preventing third‑party harms when religious liberty claims intersect with federal protections.
Exception where federal law prevents harm to others
Adds a new subsection (d) to RFRA specifying three categories where RFRA does not apply. The first category (paragraph (1)) enumerates statutory protections—antidiscrimination laws, ADA, FMLA, VAWA—and expands to employer obligations (wages, benefits, leave, collective‑activity protections), child‑protection rules, and access to health‑care items and services. Because the text covers both the statute and its "implementation," the clause reaches agency rules, administrative application, and conduct required under those laws, which matters for private entities acting under or receiving federal funds.
RFRA inapplicable to government contract/grant terms and program implementation
Paragraph (2) excludes RFRA where a government contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other award conditions the provision of a good or service to beneficiaries of a federally funded program. Practically, this pulls federally funded contractors and subrecipients within the scope of federal protections: a private organization performing services under a grant cannot rely on RFRA to avoid requirements that protect program beneficiaries.
Prevents RFRA‑based denials of equal enjoyment of government services
Paragraph (3) makes RFRA inapplicable to the extent its application would deny someone "the full and equal enjoyment" of a government‑provided good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation. This targets refusals to serve in publicly funded or government‑operated contexts and limits RFRA as a defense to exclusionary practices impacting access to public benefits.
Limits RFRA litigation to cases against governments
Rewrites the opening sentence of subsection (c) so that RFRA claims are tied to judicial proceedings where a government is a party seeking relief against that government. The mechanics are straightforward: private parties can no longer bring RFRA claims against other private parties. That changes procedural posture in many disputes—employees, customers, or patients who would previously have invoked RFRA defensively against private actors must instead rely on other legal theories or sue the government for policies that allegedly burden religion.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People subject to federal civil‑rights and disability protections (for example, LGBTQ individuals, women, and people with disabilities): they cannot be denied services or employment protections on the basis of another party’s RFRA claim where the underlying federal law prevents third‑party harm.
- Patients and program beneficiaries seeking health care (including reproductive and gender‑affirming care): the bill bars RFRA defenses that would block access, information, referrals, or coverage that federal law or programs secure.
- Children protected by federal child‑labor, abuse, and exploitation statutes: providers and employers cannot use RFRA to justify conduct that federal child‑protection laws prohibit.
- Government agencies and program administrators: the bill reduces the risk that RFRA will be used to undercut statutory program requirements or contract terms designed to protect beneficiaries.
- Workers seeking workplace protections (leave, wages, benefits, collective activity): employers cannot rely on RFRA to evade obligations imposed by federal labor and employment statutes listed in the bill.
Who Bears the Cost
- Religiously affiliated entities (hospitals, social‑service providers, schools) that receive federal funds or perform services under federal programs: they may lose a RFRA defense in disputes involving beneficiaries and face compliance costs or the need to restructure services.
- Private plaintiffs and defendants who previously used RFRA as a defense in private‑party disputes (e.g., business refusing service to a customer on religious grounds): those actors will no longer be able to assert RFRA in many private litigation contexts and must defend under state law or other federal doctrines.
- Government contractors and grantees: contract and grant compliance obligations will be harder to escape via RFRA claims, potentially increasing administrative and training costs to ensure nondiscrimination and program access.
- Courts and litigants facing novel statutory interpretation questions: judges will need to define the scope of "prevents harm to others" and the reach of "implementation," generating front‑line litigation and transitional uncertainty.
- Religious employers and small businesses that object on religious grounds to providing certain services: they may have to alter policies or face liability where federal protections apply to third parties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing protection of third parties and the integrity of federally protected programs against preserving robust protections for individual religious exercise: narrowing RFRA reduces harms to others and secures program beneficiaries, but it also removes a tool religious claimants used to defend against burdens—forcing courts and policymakers to choose which form of liberty or protection should prevail in contested settings.
The bill resolves one problem—RFRA being used to avoid compliance with federal protections—while creating fresh interpretive and enforcement questions. The phrase "prevents harm to others" is not defined and will invite litigation over what counts as meaningful harm and which statutes qualify as preventing that harm.
Courts will confront disputes over whether an asserted religious burden actually collides with a federal preventive purpose or only indirectly affects a protected interest. The inclusion of "implementation" broadens the exception to agency action and program administration, but it leaves open how far down the chain of contractors and subcontractors the exception travels.
Limiting RFRA suits to proceedings with a government party shifts the target of RFRA litigation but does not eliminate claims about burdens on religious exercise: plaintiffs may pivot to First Amendment challenges, state RFRA statutes (where they exist), or other federal statutes that contain religious‑accommodation language. The government‑contracting carve‑out strengthens the federal government’s leverage in program delivery but raises questions about religious organizations’ obligations when they are the only or primary providers of certain services in a community.
Finally, because the amendment is to federal RFRA only, state‑level RFRA protections and state remedies remain in play; that creates a patchwork where the availability of religious exemptions will vary by jurisdiction and program funding source.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.