D.C. Bill Seeks to Cut Federal Religious Freedom Protections, Granting D.C. Full Autonomy Over Civil Rights Laws

The “District of Columbia Non-Discrimination Home Rule Act of 2025” is short, but its impact is huge. This bill proposes one major change: it explicitly removes the District of Columbia from the list of jurisdictions covered by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). In plain English, if this bill passes, the federal RFRA will no longer apply to D.C. laws or the D.C. government’s actions.

The RFRA Safety Net: What’s Being Removed?

To understand this bill, you need to know what RFRA does. The federal RFRA is a law that requires the government to meet a very high legal bar—called “strict scrutiny”—if its actions or laws substantially burden a person’s religious exercise. Essentially, it’s a powerful legal tool that allows individuals and organizations to challenge laws that make practicing their faith significantly harder. If D.C. passes a law that a religious organization believes interferes with their operations—say, a specific zoning rule or a non-discrimination ordinance—RFRA currently forces the D.C. government to prove that the law serves a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way to achieve that goal. This bill, by striking D.C. from the RFRA coverage list (Section 2), removes that entire layer of federal legal protection.

Home Rule vs. Heightened Protection

The stated goal here is granting D.C. greater “Home Rule,” allowing the local government full autonomy over its own non-discrimination laws without federal interference. For the D.C. Council, this means streamlined governance; they won’t have to worry about federal RFRA challenges every time they pass a law touching on civil rights or public accommodation. This is a win for local control, allowing the District to move forward with its own legislative priorities without federal oversight.

The Trade-Off for Residents and Organizations

However, for religious organizations, small businesses run by people of faith, or even individuals whose religious practices might conflict with future D.C. ordinances, this change is a significant downgrade in legal recourse. If the federal RFRA is removed, they lose access to that strict scrutiny standard. They would still have protections under the First Amendment and local D.C. laws, but those standards are generally lower and harder to win under than the federal RFRA. Think of it this way: RFRA is the strongest legal shield against government overreach concerning religious practice, and this bill is removing that shield specifically for D.C. residents and entities. Without RFRA, D.C. could potentially pass ordinances that significantly burden religious groups, and those groups would face a much tougher legal battle challenging those laws in court.