Economic Infrastructure Commentary Series
Originally drafted 2021 by Oriana Ma. Updated by the Drake Institute Editorial Team, August 2025.
Commentary
In 2021, the Drake Institute examined the persistent problem of religious discrimination against Muslim women in the United States. At the time, Muslim Americans reported institutional discrimination at rates higher than any other religious group, and Muslim women were disproportionately targeted because of observable religious attire—such as hijabs or modesty swimwear—hindering their ability to live, work, and participate freely. Despite protections codified in the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many states lacked explicit safeguards for religious clothing, which left Muslim women exposed to exclusion in employment, public spaces, schools, and identification procedures .
Federal protections, such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), have sought to ease religious burdens; yet the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) extended RFRA in ways that enabled businesses to deny services or rights in the name of religion, often affecting women and LGBTQ+ communities most severely . Though the Supreme Court clarified in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) that RFRA does not apply to states, Georgia’s SB 22 (2019) epitomized how state-level RFRAs can still pose threats—especially when uncoupled from explicit anti-discrimination provisions .
Some states have taken proactive steps to address these gaps. In New York, legislative initiatives such as S1970 banned workplace discrimination based on religious attire , A6591 targeted bias at recreational water facilities, implicitly protecting modest swimwear , and S4094/A6555 sought religious exemptions for mandated photo IDs—though many of these bills stalled. New York also considered A2738, which would criminalize the forcible removal of religious garments as a form of aggravated harassment.
Other states experimented with broader protections. Georgia introduced HB 19 and HB 53, which expanded civil rights protections in housing, employment, and schools ; similarly, Texas SB 888 aimed to outlaw public accommodation bias . Illinois went further by proposing HB 15, categorizing such discrimination as a misdemeanor . California long ago codified hate crime protections for religious identity under Penal Code 422.55 (2005), underscoring its leadership in this area . Pennsylvania’s 2019 resolution (HR 117) urged bystander intervention during hate crimes—but failed narrowly.
Despite these efforts, religious discrimination remains a daily reality for Muslim women across the U.S., limiting mobility, educational access, and economic opportunity. Privately and institutionally imposed barriers remain widespread.
From the Drake Institute’s perspective, this underscores why access and inclusion are economic infrastructure. Just as roads and transit systems connect communities to opportunity, civil rights protections ensure individuals—especially those visibly distinct—can participate without fear. When people are excluded based on faith or cultural expression, the economic and civic fabric weakens. Enshrining anti-discrimination protections for religious attire, public space access, and fair identification processes is essential not only for justice, but for building inclusive prosperity.
2025 Update
In the current legislative session, New York revisited student protections: Assembly Bill A6792 (2025) and its Senate counterpart (S1424) now explicitly prohibit school “harassment or discrimination … based on religious attire, clothing or facial hair” during school events—closing a longstanding loophole in Education Law . At the federal level, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) expanded its enforcement to include Islamophobia and antisemitism under Title VI, opening investigations at universities including Emory, Columbia, and Wellesley for discrimination against Muslim and Arab students .
Meanwhile, federal civil rights leadership is facing headwinds—critics warn that shifts in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division priorities risk deprioritizing enforcement of religious and minority protections, raising concerns about reduced administrative oversight and fewer resolutions outside courtrooms .
These developments illustrate that religious inclusion remains contested terrain. Expanding protections, updating enforcement mechanisms, and safeguarding institutional support—especially in schools—is still as critical today as it was in 2021.
Archival Reference
This commentary draws on Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Women (Ma, 2021). The original version is archived by the Drake Institute.