However, it continues to be applied to the federal government—for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014).

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)).

But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens.

In Lyng, members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes argued that the First Amendment should prevent the U.S. Forest Service from constructing a road through sacred land used in ceremonies and prayer.

[9] In Smith, the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony.

Groups representing all points on the political spectrum (from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Traditional Values Coalition) and a wide variety of religions (i.e. the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals) agreed that the law required reform, and recommended reinstating the Sherbert Test.

"[12] According to a federal appeals court ruling on March 7, 2018, the RFRA did not justify discrimination against employees on the basis of their lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity in those circumstances.

"[6] Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) determined that RFRA allows for those whose religious rights are adversely affected by federal officers acting in their capacity for the government to seek appropriate remedies, including monetary damages, from those individuals.

"[19] RFRA, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's executive order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.

[20] The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a cornerstone for tribes challenging the National Forest Service's plans to permit upgrades to Arizona's Snowbowl ski resort.

[24] In Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the use of recycled sewage water in order to manufacture artificial snow in the San Francisco Peaks was not a "substantial burden" on the religious freedom of Native Americans.

[25] The RFRA figured prominently in oral arguments in the case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, heard by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.

[26] In a 5–4 decision, Justice Alito declared that nothing about the language of RFRA or the manner in which Congress passed it implied the statutory protections conferred therein were confined solely within the bounds of First Amendment case law as it existed pre-Smith.

The first keynote address was from Oliver S. Thomas, the former general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the chair of the diverse "Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion" in the 1990s that worked for the passage of RFRA.

His address traced the legal history of RFRA and discussed its impact on current debates, including the contraception mandate and same-sex marriage laws.

The panel discussions covered the history and impact of RFRA, religious freedom and the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, and current and future challenges to the free exercise of religion in a diverse society.