employment

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.
Read More

State-level religious freedom protections grow in recent years #Catholic Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA). Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakeningWhen RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. “[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

unitedyam

Thirty states have adopted some version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) first signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. / Credit: Leigh Prather/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Oct 21, 2025 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

Protections for religious freedom in the U.S. have grown in recent years with multiple states adopting laws to strengthen the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religion.

As of 2025, 30 states have adopted a version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or similar legislative protection for religious freedom. 

The most recent states to adopt those protections for state-level laws were Georgia and Wyoming in 2025 and Iowa, Utah, and Nebraska in 2024. West Virginia and North Dakota adopted them in 2023 and South Dakota and Montana did the same in 2021.

RFRA was first adopted in 1993, when then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law to expand religious freedom protections. Under the law, the federal government cannot “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling government interest” and it is carried out in the “least restrictive” means possible.

Congress passed the law in response to the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which asserted that the First Amendment was not violated as long as a law was “neutral and generally applicable.” The law was intended to provide a stronger safeguard for the free exercise of religion than what was provided by the highest court. 

Bipartisan consensus gone, but opposition weakening

When RFRA was adopted at the federal level in the 1990s, the protections had overwhelming bipartisan support. In the 2010s, that bipartisan consensus waned as most Democrats voiced opposition to the protections.

Tim Schultz, the president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told CNA that in 2013, two states adopted RFRA with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and about two-thirds support from Democrats. However, the law became more divisive after the 2014 Supreme Court ruling in favor of exempting Hobby Lobby from a mandate to provide abortifacient drugs based on RFRA.

“That [bipartisan support] seems like a million years ago,” Schultz said. “Now I would say Republican support is about the same as it was then. Democratic support is under 5%.”

Although Schultz did not express optimism that bipartisan support could return any time soon, he credited some cultural shifts for the strong success in Republican-leaning states over the past four years.

From 2014 through 2020, he said business groups and LGBT groups “were working together very strongly … in opposition to religious freedom bills” because they saw them as threats to certain anti-discrimination laws related to workplace policies from religious employers.

However, post-2020, he said, “the politics of RFRA are far more favorable,” and he noted there has been “far less opposition from business groups.”

One reason for this change, according to Schultz, was the widely-published story of NCAA championship swimmer Lia Thomas, a biologically male swimmer who identified as a transgender woman and competed in women’s sports. This led polling to “change on every issue related to LGBT,” he noted.

Another reason, he argued, was the response to transgender-related policies by Target and the Bud Light ads, which led to “consumer anger at both of them.” He noted the money lost by the corporations “made business groups say ‘we are not going to have the same posture.’”

In spite of the partisanship that fuels the current debate, Schultz noted RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on a wide range of issues, some of which have pleased conservatives and others that have pleased progressives.

Although RFRA has been used to defend religious freedom on issues related to contraception, abortion, gender, and sexuality, it has also been used to defend religious organizations that provide services for migrants. 

“[RFRA is] not politically predictable,” Schultz said.

Read More
U.S. bishops warn of looming court order in Obama-era immigration program #Catholic A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops' Department of Migration and Refugee Services.Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA's core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. Impending implementation The USCCB's Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.”"[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas," the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days' notice. For Texas's approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California's 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive "forbearance from removal" (deferred deportation) but lose "lawful presence" status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver's licenses. To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.
Read More

U.S. bishops warn of looming court order in Obama-era immigration program #Catholic A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops’ Department of Migration and Refugee Services.Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA’s core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. Impending implementation The USCCB’s Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.””[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas,” the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days’ notice. For Texas’s approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California’s 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive “forbearance from removal” (deferred deportation) but lose “lawful presence” status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver’s licenses. To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.

unitedyam

A DACA protest sign is waved outside of the White House. / null

CNA Staff, Oct 18, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) released an update this week on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program highlighting the threat a looming court order may pose to the legal privileges of some immigrants in Texas.

Immigrants covered by DACA who move to or from Texas could quickly face the loss of their work authorization under the new court order, according to the bishops’ Department of Migration and Refugee Services.

Launched in 2012 through executive action by then-President Barack Obama, DACA offers work authorization and temporary protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors. 

The first Trump administration tried to end the program but was blocked from doing so in 2020 by the U.S. Supreme Court. While President Donald Trump has indicated a willingness to work with Democrats on the status of DACA beneficiaries, the program continues to be subject to litigation, with the latest developments centering on the Texas v. United States case.

In that case, Texas sued the federal government claiming that DACA was illegally created without statutory authority, as it was formed through executive action rather than legislation passed by Congress.

In January, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the U.S. district court’s declaration that DACA is unlawful, but narrowed the scope to Texas, separating deportation protections from work authorization. This means, in theory, that DACA’s core shield against removal could remain available nationwide for current recipients and new applicants, while work permits might be preserved for most — except in Texas. 

Impending implementation 

The USCCB’s Oct. 14 advisory comes as the district court prepares to implement the ruling upheld by the appeals court. On Sept. 29 the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance concerning how the order should be implemented. 

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, told CNA that the key takeaway from the USCCB’s update is a “warning” to DACA recipients “who live in Texas.”

“[A]nyone who has DACA or is eligible to receive it would need to consider the implications of moving to or from Texas,” the USCCB update states, pointing out that relocation could trigger revocation of employment authorization with just 15 days’ notice. 

For Texas’s approximately 90,000 DACA recipients — the second-largest population after California’s 145,000 — the implications could be stark, according to the bishops. 

Under the order, if it is implemented according to the U.S. government’s proposals, DACA recipients who live in Texas could receive “forbearance from removal” (deferred deportation) but lose “lawful presence” status, disqualifying them from work permits and benefits like in-state tuition or driver’s licenses. 

To be eligible for DACA, applicants must have arrived before age 16, resided continuously since June 15, 2007, and been under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. There are approximately 530,000 DACA participants nationwide according to KFF, formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation. The KFF estimates that up to 1.1 million individuals meet DACA eligibility criteria.

Read More