State Law Reference Guide:
Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee
Christian Employers Alliance | State-Level Religious Freedom Protections
Federal court victories protect you from Washington. They do not protect you from your statehouse.
This guide covers what Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee have on the books, what courts have said, and where your exposure remains unresolved.
Companion to the Federal Religious Liberty Case Law Reference Guide and the State Religious Liberty Cases: A Reference Guide for Christian Employers.
Read every caution flag
Where something cannot be confirmed to publication standard, it is flagged. Do not rely on unverified entries without independent legal review.
State One of Three
Alabama
| RFRA Statute | Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, Ala. Const. art. I, Section 3.01 |
| Enacted | 1998 |
| Stronger State Protection | Yes |
| Declined to Follow Smith | Yes |
Scope
The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment is a state constitutional provision, not a statutory RFRA. It expressly responds to Employment Division v. Smith (1990) and restores the compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test as the governing standard for government burdens on religious exercise in Alabama. The amendment operates at the constitutional level, giving it greater durability than a statutory RFRA subject to ordinary legislative repeal.
Leading Case and Holding
Thai Meditation Ass'n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, 980 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 2020) (TMAA I), on remand, No. 22-11674 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2023) (TMAA II). This case proceeded in two Eleventh Circuit decisions. In TMAA I (2020), the court affirmed in part and remanded, including on the state-law ARFA claim. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the City. In TMAA II (2023), the Eleventh Circuit vacated that judgment on the ARFA claim and held that the City failed to carry its burden to demonstrate a compelling government interest under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment's strict scrutiny standard. The 2023 decision is the operative ruling establishing that the ARFA's compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test is judicially enforceable and that the government bears the burden to satisfy it.
Employer Relevance
Alabama's constitutional amendment provides meaningful state-level protection for faith-driven employers facing government burdens on religious exercise. If a state or local agency imposes a mandate, regulation, or enforcement action that substantially burdens your religious convictions, Alabama law requires the government to satisfy strict scrutiny before that burden stands. This is a materially stronger position than the federal baseline set by Smith.
Caution Flag
The leading case (Thai Meditation Ass'n) is a federal appellate decision from the Eleventh Circuit applying Alabama constitutional law. It is not a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation carries significant weight and reflects how federal courts sitting in Alabama apply the amendment, but Alabama's own supreme court has not issued a controlling published interpretation confirmed for this guide. Independent legal review against current Alabama Supreme Court authority is recommended before relying on this entry in litigation or compliance planning.
State Two of Three
Georgia
| RFRA Statute | Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 36, codified at O.C.G.A. Title 50 (signed April 4, 2025) |
| Enacted | 2025 (effective upon signing, April 4, 2025) |
| Stronger State Protection | Newly statutory — no appellate interpretation yet |
| Declined to Follow Smith | Legislative, not judicial — statute restores compelling-interest standard |
Scope
Georgia enacted its Religious Freedom Restoration Act on April 4, 2025 (S.B. 36, signed by Gov. Brian Kemp). The statute mirrors federal RFRA: it bars state and local government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling governmental interest advanced by the least restrictive means. This fills the gap that existed when Georgia had no state-law backstop. The protection is statutory, not constitutional, and is subject to amendment or repeal by simple majority. The law is newly enacted as of the date this guide was last updated; no controlling Georgia appellate decision interpreting the statute has been identified.
Leading Case and Holding
No Controlling Appellate Authority — Statute Is Newly Enacted
No confirmed Georgia appellate case interpreting the 2025 RFRA has been identified. The statute was signed April 4, 2025. No prior Georgia appellate ruling establishing a stronger free-exercise standard under the Georgia Constitution has been confirmed to publication standard for this guide. Do not cite a case here without independent verification of the citation, holding, and current validity.
Employer Relevance
Georgia faith-driven employers now have a statutory cause of action and defense under state law for the first time. Where a state or local government action substantially burdens religious exercise, the 2025 RFRA requires the government to satisfy compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means scrutiny. This closes the gap that previously left Georgia employers without a state-law backstop when federal RFRA did not apply. The protection is real but entirely untested in Georgia courts as of the date this guide was last updated. Practical reach in contested cases will be shaped by how Georgia courts interpret the statute over time.
Caution Flags
Georgia's RFRA is newly enacted (April 4, 2025) and carries significant practical uncertainty. No appellate court has construed it. Its scope in employment and ministry contexts, and the standard of proof Georgia courts will apply, are open questions. Verify the current codification (O.C.G.A. Title 50), confirm no amendments or implementing regulations have followed enactment, and treat any reliance on this statute in litigation or compliance planning as requiring current independent legal review. The prior gap (no state RFRA) has been legislatively closed; the new gap is the absence of any appellate track record.
State Three of Three
Tennessee
| RFRA Statute | Tennessee Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Tenn. Code Ann. Section 4-1-407 |
| Enacted | 2009 (amended 2015, 2018) |
| Stronger State Protection | Not confirmed to publication standard |
| Declined to Follow Smith | Partially — legislative, not judicial |
Scope
Tennessee's RFRA bars state and local government from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that the burden (1) advances a compelling governmental interest and (2) is the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. The statute has been amended twice since original enactment, with the 2015 and 2018 amendments extending or clarifying its scope. Tennessee's RFRA is statutory, not constitutional, which means it is subject to legislative amendment or repeal by a simple majority.
Leading Case and Holding
Unverified — Requires Manual Check
No controlling Tennessee appellate decision interpreting Tenn. Code Ann. Section 4-1-407 in a published, employer-relevant opinion has been confirmed to publication standard for this guide. Do not cite a case here without independent verification of the citation, holding, and current validity.
Employer Relevance
Tennessee's RFRA provides a statutory cause of action and defense for faith-driven employers facing state or local government actions that substantially burden religious exercise. An employer subject to a state mandate, regulatory requirement, or enforcement action inconsistent with sincerely held religious convictions can invoke the statute to require the government to satisfy compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means scrutiny. The protection is real but untested at the controlling appellate level based on confirmed authority available for this guide.
Declined to Follow Employment Division v. Smith
Partially. Tennessee's legislature enacted a statutory RFRA that restores the compelling-interest standard Smith eliminated from federal constitutional doctrine. This is a legislative rejection of Smith's outcome, not a judicial one. No confirmed Tennessee court ruling declining to follow Smith under the Tennessee Constitution has been identified to publication standard.
Caution Flags
Tennessee's RFRA is the operative protection, and its text is clear. The gap in this entry is the absence of confirmed controlling appellate interpretation. Without a published Tennessee Court of Appeals or Tennessee Supreme Court decision construing Section 4-1-407 in an employer-relevant context, the statute's practical reach in contested cases remains untested in the appellate record confirmed for this guide. Independent legal review against current Tennessee appellate authority is required before relying on this entry in litigation or compliance planning. Also verify whether the 2015 and 2018 amendments introduced scope changes relevant to workplace or employment contexts.
Three-State Summary
Where You Stand in This Block
Three states. Three different positions. The state where you operate determines the legal ground you stand on when a mandate arrives.
Alabama
Constitutional Protection
State constitutional amendment (Ala. Const. art. I, Section 3.01, enacted 1998) expressly restores compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test and declines to follow Smith. Operates above the statutory level.
Georgia
Statutory RFRA — Newly Enacted
Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act (S.B. 36) signed April 4, 2025. Mirrors federal RFRA. Statutory, not constitutional. No appellate interpretation yet. Verify current codification and scope before relying on this entry.
Tennessee
Statutory RFRA
Tenn. Code Ann. Section 4-1-407 (enacted 2009, amended 2015 and 2018) provides compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means protection. Statutory, not constitutional. Appellate interpretation unconfirmed.
RFRA statute states (this block): Georgia (S.B. 36, enacted April 4, 2025 — newly enacted, no appellate track record); Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. Section 4-1-407, enacted 2009, amended 2015 and 2018)
Stronger state constitutional protection states (this block): Alabama (Ala. Const. art. I, Section 3.01, enacted 1998, expressly restores compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means test and declines to follow Smith)
No meaningful state-level protection identified (this block): None. All three states now have either a constitutional amendment (Alabama) or a statutory RFRA (Georgia, Tennessee). The prior Georgia gap was closed by S.B. 36 (April 2025).
The Bottom Line
Your state can reach you where federal law cannot.
CEA members carry permanent federal court injunctions from day one. The federal threat is covered. The state front is different, and the state where you operate shapes everything.
Know your state. Build the record. Assert your rights.
Read the Full Cluster
This guide block is a reference tool, not legal advice. Unverified entries are flagged and must not be used in litigation, compliance filings, or formal legal guidance without independent verification by qualified counsel. Verify all citations, holdings, and legislative status as of the date of use. This is part of the CEA State-Law Reference Guide series. It provides general legal information, not legal advice. Consult qualified counsel on your specific circumstances.