Congress should remove any doubt by unequivocally reaffirming in the resolution its intention to apply RFRA to federal agencies. Second, Congress should adopt a RFRA-like statute under other congressional powers set forth in Article I of the Constitution, including its spending power and its power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress's spending powers have been used before as a jurisdictional predicate for other similar legislation. Governmental units administering federally funded programs would have to agree to protect the religious freedom of the programs' beneficiaries. While Congress's spending power would tend to protect individuals, the rights of religious organizations could be protected under the Commerce Clause.
Most churches affect interstate commerce to some extent.
Although the Court has cut back on Congress's commerce powers, scholars are confident that such an exercise of power could be sustained. The drawback to tying RFRA to Congress's spending and commerce powers is, of course, that it would afford less than comprehensive coverage. Nevertheless, this federal legislative remedy would be an important part of a more comprehensive solution. Third, there is nothing in the Court's opinion to suggest that the states could not choose to bind themselves to heightened protection for religion. Some states already have greater protection as a matter of state constitutional interpretation.