In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides a general exemption from laws that place an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion. Since the RFRA only applies to federal laws, many states have passed their own version of it, but several states with large Jewish populations have not. In New York, many Orthodox Jewish schools are currently protesting new regulations on private education that, they argue, threaten their freedom to structure religious education as they see fit. A state RFRA could have prevented the resulting conflict, note Mitchell Rocklin and Howard Slugh, and would benefit religious Jews in other ways as well:

[In many instances], Jews have used the [federal RFRA and its state equivalents] to protect their religious freedom. For instance, Jewish military personnel often rely on it to obtain kosher meals and Shabbat accommodations. RFRA is taught in military chaplaincy curricula and is a basis upon which chaplains and commanders accommodate service members of all faiths.

RFRA has a sister statute: the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). That statute functions in effectively the same manner, but in limited circumstances it also applies to states. Jews have used RLUIPA to defend their rights to build synagogues and religious schools in the face of restrictive zoning laws. Jewish prisoners have used RLUIPA to obtain kosher food, sacramental wine, and other necessary religious goods. One way to highlight the importance of RFRA is to explore how vulnerable Jews are in instances where it does not apply.

In 2016, in California, an animal-rights group sued to prevent a rabbi from performing the kapparot ritual before Yom Kippur, a practice in which some Jews slaughter chickens and then use the meat to feed poor families. In this case, the plaintiffs sued under a generally applicable unfair-competition law to prevent the rabbi from killing chickens. In its legal briefs, an animal-rights group acknowledged that if California had an RFRA law, the rabbi might have a defense. But because California has no such protection, the group claimed that the California need not accommodate religious observances. The group succeeded in dragging out the litigation long enough to prevent the rabbi from performing the ritual that year.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.