This bill amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to add an explicit exception whenever a federal law exists to prevent meaningful harm to third parties. It also narrows the venues in which RFRA can be invoked by clarifying that RFRA remedies are available only in judicial proceedings to which a government is a party seeking relief against that government.
The change matters because it removes a statutory pathway for individuals or private organizations to use RFRA as a shield against federal requirements meant to protect others — for example, anti‑discrimination rules, worker protections, child‑safety laws, and federally backed healthcare access — and refocuses RFRA as a tool for challenging government conduct rather than resolving private disputes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection to 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1 creating an exception to RFRA whenever a federal law or its implementation ‘‘provides for or requires’’ protections aimed at preventing harm to others. It also excludes RFRA from applying where a government contract or grant requires services for beneficiaries, and it prevents RFRA from being used to deny equal enjoyment of government‑provided goods or services. Separately, it amends RFRA’s preclusion clause to limit RFRA litigation to cases where the government is a party and the relief is sought against the government.
Who It Affects
Federally regulated actors and recipients of federal funds — including federal contractors and subrecipients, healthcare providers participating in federally funded programs, employers operating under federal labor and benefits laws, and recipients of government goods and services — as well as private plaintiffs who previously brought RFRA defenses in private litigation. Federal agencies and courts will also change how they process RFRA claims.
Why It Matters
The bill narrows a common statutory route used to claim religious exemptions from federal duties when those duties protect third parties. For compliance teams, it reduces the availability of RFRA as a defense in private‑party suits and raises the likelihood that obligations tied to federal funding, contracts, anti‑discrimination laws, and healthcare access will survive RFRA challenges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites how RFRA operates in two ways that change litigation strategy and compliance risk. First, it inserts an express exception into RFRA for federal laws and their implementation that ‘‘provide for or require’’ protections to prevent harm to other people.
The statute lists categories as examples — civil‑rights and anti‑discrimination laws, workplace compensation and benefits requirements, protections against child labor and abuse, and access to health care items or services — but the phrasing is broadly framed to catch federal measures with the purpose of protecting third parties. Where a federal law falls into that category, RFRA does not apply as an override.
Second, the bill takes RFRA off the table in much private litigation by narrowing the statute’s procedural reach. The current text of RFRA has been used by private parties in lawsuits against other private parties; this amendment changes 3(c) so RFRA claims are only available in judicial proceedings where a government is a party and the relief sought is against that government.
That shifts RFRA back toward a mechanism for checking government action rather than a general private‑law defense.Operationally, that means several practical consequences. Federal contractors and grantees who are required by award terms to provide goods or services to beneficiaries cannot rely on RFRA to avoid those contractual duties when federal law aims to prevent harm.
Healthcare providers participating in federal programs or operating under federal coverage requirements face the same constraint with respect to refusals to provide, refer, or cover care. Employers subject to federal anti‑discrimination, wage, leave, or collective‑activity protections will be less able to invoke RFRA in private employment suits.
At the same time, RFRA remains on the books as a tool to challenge federal government actions that substantially burden religious exercise, but agencies and courts will have to adjudicate whether the underlying federal law ‘‘prevents harm to others’’ before applying RFRA’s protections.The text leaves several interpretive questions that agencies and courts will decide: how broadly ‘‘provides for or requires’’ is read, whether a statute that incidentally protects third parties qualifies, and how the government‑party limitation interacts with state RFRAs or First Amendment claims. Those doctrinal battles will determine how sweeping the change proves in practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subsection (d) to 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1 (Section 3 of RFRA) creating an exception when a federal law ‘‘prevents harm to others.’, It explicitly lists examples that fall within the exception, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Violence Against Women Act.
The exception covers federal provisions that require employers to provide wages, compensation, benefits (including leave), or protections for collective activity in the workplace.
It applies to any term of a government contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other federal award that requires a good, service, or function be provided to a beneficiary of a federally funded program, whether the funds are provided directly or indirectly.
The bill amends Section 3(c) of RFRA to limit RFRA claims to ‘‘judicial proceeding[s] to which a government is a party and obtain appropriate relief against that government,’’ barring RFRA remedies in purely private litigation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Do No Harm Act'
This is the formal short‑title provision; it does not alter substance. It signals the bill’s intent to prioritize preventing harm to third parties as the guiding policy rationale for the changes that follow.
New exception where federal law prevents harm to others
This is the core substantive insertion. It adds subsection (d) to RFRA’s Section 3 and lists three operative clauses. The first clause exempts from RFRA application any federal law or its implementation that ‘‘provides for or requires’’ protections aimed at preventing harm to third parties, and it gives concrete examples (major civil‑rights statutes, ADA, FMLA, VAWA) plus categories like employer compensation/benefits rules, child‑protection measures, and access to health care services. Practically, that means when a federal statutory regime has the stated protective purpose, RFRA cannot be invoked to avoid compliance with that regime.
Contract and beneficiary exception
The second numbered clause extends the exception to the terms of government contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other federal awards that require a good, service, or activity be provided to program beneficiaries — and it covers funds provided directly or indirectly. In effect, federal funding conditions and contractual obligations intended to secure benefits for recipients will not be subject to RFRA‑based carve‑outs by contractors or grantees.
Equal enjoyment exception for government‑provided goods and services
The third clause bars RFRA from applying to the extent its application would deny a person the ‘‘full and equal enjoyment’’ of a government‑provided good, service, benefit, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation. That language is designed to protect beneficiaries’ access to government programs and facilities from being limited by others’ religious objections.
Limits RFRA litigation to proceedings involving the government
Section 3 revises RFRA’s preclusion language so that RFRA claims are available only in judicial proceedings in which a government is a party and relief is sought against that government. This narrows RFRA’s procedural reach and prevents private parties from invoking RFRA as a defense or affirmative claim in lawsuits between private litigants.
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
- Individuals who are the targets of federal civil‑rights protections — the amendment makes it harder for third parties to use RFRA to evade anti‑discrimination obligations, protecting access to employment, housing, and public accommodations.
- Patients and beneficiaries of federally supported health programs — by excluding RFRA where federal law secures access to healthcare items, referrals, or coverage, the bill supports continued access to services that federal programs aim to guarantee.
- Employees covered by federal labor and benefits statutes — workers seeking wages, leave, or protection for collective activity will face fewer RFRA-based defenses from employers in disputes.
- Recipients of federal programs and contractors’ beneficiaries — the contract/grant exception preserves programmatic access and prevents contractors from invoking RFRA to withhold services required by award terms.
- Federal agencies enforcing statutory protections — agencies will have clearer statutory footing to enforce obligations without RFRA as an intervening statutory defense.
Who Bears the Cost
- Religiously motivated providers and employers who previously relied on RFRA to decline participation in services that affect third parties — they may lose statutory exemptions and face compliance costs or litigation risk.
- Faith‑based contractors and grantees receiving federal funds — they must comply with award terms that require delivering services to beneficiaries, potentially forcing operational changes or risking loss of funding.
- Private parties who previously used RFRA as a defense in disputes with other private parties (for example, an employer sued by an employee) — they will no longer be able to raise RFRA in purely private litigation and may face liability.
- Legal defense budgets for entities accustomed to RFRA defenses — organizations will need to reassess litigation strategies and may incur higher costs defending statutory claims without RFRA as a backstop.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is the trade‑off between protecting sincere religious exercise and preventing meaningful harm to third parties: the bill restricts statutory religious exemptions to preserve others’ access to rights, services, and protections, but doing so narrows the practical scope of religious accommodation — a legitimate protection for conscience may conflict with an equally legitimate need to prevent discrimination or harm to vulnerable people.
The statutory language uses broad, purposive phrases — ‘‘provides for or requires’’ and ‘‘prevents harm to others’’ — and then lists examples. Courts will have to decide whether that list is illustrative or exhaustive and how to measure whether a federal law’s purpose is to ‘‘prevent harm to others’’ rather than to advance a neutral regulatory objective.
That interpretive step is the likely battleground: some statutes will clearly qualify, but others that have mixed purposes or indirect protective effects may generate disputes over whether RFRA is displaced.
The amendment to Section 3(c) also raises interplay questions with state RFRAs and constitutional claims. Because this is a federal statutory fix, it does not directly alter state RFRA laws or the First Amendment, but narrowing RFRA’s federal reach may shift litigation into state court or toward constitutional arguments.
Agencies that administer federal programs and awards will likely need guidance and possibly rulemaking to apply the contract and beneficiary clauses, and recipients of federal funds will seek clarity about when indirect funding triggers the exception. Finally, litigants will test temporal and retroactivity issues: whether the exception applies to obligations and awards entered before enactment and how courts should treat defenses raised in pending cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.