Do No Harm Act
- Bill Number
- S. 894
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-27T11:03:21Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Do No Harm Act" (S. 894) aims to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to limit its application in situations where religious exercise claims could undermine civil rights protections, equal opportunities, or cause harm to third parties. It seeks to prioritize federal laws that prevent discrimination, exploitation, or denial of essential services while preserving RFRA's core protections against government burdens on religious practice.
Key Provisions
- Exceptions to RFRA Application (New Subsection 3(d)):
- RFRA's protections (which require the government to justify burdens on religious exercise with a compelling interest and least restrictive means) do not apply to federal laws or their implementation that:
- Protect against discrimination or promote equal opportunity, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (bans discrimination in public accommodations and employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ensures accessibility and non-discrimination for people with disabilities), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (provides unpaid leave for family or medical reasons), or the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (addresses domestic violence and stalking).
- Require employers to provide wages, benefits (like paid leave), or protections for group activities in the workplace.
- Safeguard against child labor, abuse, or exploitation.
- Ensure access to, information about, referrals for, or coverage of health care items or services.
- RFRA does not apply to terms in government contracts, grants, or agreements that fund programs requiring goods, services, or activities for beneficiaries or participants.
- RFRA is inapplicable if its use would deny someone full and equal access to government-provided benefits, facilities, or accommodations.
- Clarification on Litigation (Amended Section 3(c)):
- RFRA can only be raised as a claim or defense in court cases where the government is a party; individuals cannot use it to sue or defend against private parties (non-government entities) for "appropriate relief."
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Narrowing RFRA's Scope: Previously, RFRA broadly protected religious exercise from federal government burdens unless justified by a compelling interest. This bill adds specific exceptions, excluding RFRA claims in key civil rights, labor, child welfare, and health care contexts to prevent religious exemptions from overriding these protections.
- Limiting Private Enforcement: The amendment to Section 3(c) explicitly bars RFRA from being used in disputes between private individuals or organizations, restricting it to government-involved cases. This clarifies and reduces RFRA's reach beyond its original intent, which focused on government actions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Agencies enforcing civil rights, labor, or health laws (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Labor) may face fewer RFRA-based challenges, streamlining enforcement but potentially increasing litigation over the exceptions' validity.
- On Citizens: Individuals protected by anti-discrimination or access laws (e.g., employees seeking equal pay, patients needing health services, or victims of abuse) gain stronger safeguards against religious-based denials of rights. However, those claiming religious burdens (e.g., in providing certain services) may find it harder to obtain exemptions.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence U.S. positions in global human rights discussions by emphasizing civil rights over certain religious claims in domestic policy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Religious Individuals and Organizations: May lose ability to invoke RFRA for exemptions in employment, health care, or contracts, affecting faith-based groups, businesses, or providers.
- Civil Rights and Advocacy Groups: Benefit from reinforced protections, including LGBTQ+ organizations, disability rights advocates, labor unions, and women's health groups.
- Employers and Employees: Businesses face clearer rules on benefits and non-discrimination; workers gain from unhindered access to wages, leave, and anti-harassment measures.
- Government and Funded Programs: Entities receiving federal funds must comply without RFRA interference, impacting schools, hospitals, and social services.
- Health Care Providers and Patients: Ensures broader access to services without religious opt-outs blocking coverage or referrals.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: The bill could reduce RFRA litigation volume by carving out exceptions, but it may invite challenges under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause (which protects religious practice) or Equal Protection Clause, arguing the limits unduly restrict religious freedom. Courts might need to interpret "harm to third parties" in future cases.
- Constitutional Implications: Balances religious liberty against other constitutional rights (e.g., equal protection), potentially aligning more closely with Supreme Court precedents like Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which limited religious exemptions in neutral laws of general applicability.
- Political Implications: Introduced by a bipartisan but largely Democratic group of senators, it reflects ongoing debates over religious freedoms versus civil rights (e.g., in contexts like contraception coverage or same-sex marriage services). Passage could polarize views on church-state separation, influencing future religious liberty legislation.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (25)
Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD], Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI], Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR], Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA], Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT], Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM], Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV], Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Do No Harm Act — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (4 pages)