In a 2011 analysis from the Federalist Society defending to OLC Memo, however, Derek Gaubatz wrote, "The outcome of this debate [over whether to keep or reverse the OLC Memo] will affect the ability of faith-based providers who engage in religious hiring preferences to compete with secular and other faith-based organizations for federal social service grants."

Members of the group have been asking the Justice Department or White House to rescind the OLC Memo since Obama took office, but this is the first time that the letter has been sent directly to the president. Previous letters were sent to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, as in 2009 and 2014 , as well as to the head of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships in 2013 .

The 130 organizations — including the ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood — counter in their letter to Obama that the opinion "relies on flawed legal analysis" that RFRA "provides a blanket override of a statutory non-discrimination provision." A copy of the letter was provided to BuzzFeed News.

The 2007 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that, under RFRA, religious organizations seeking federal grants could not be forced to adhere to religious nondiscrimination laws in hiring.

WASHINGTON — On Thursday morning, 130 civil rights and religious organizations, unions, and other progressive groups sent a letter to President Obama urging that he direct the Justice Department to reverse a Bush-era legal opinion about the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Full Letter Sent To President Obama:

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF

JUNE 29, 2007 OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM RE: RFRA

August 20, 2015

The Honorable Barack H. Obama

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The 130 undersigned religious, education, civil rights, labor, LGBT, women's, and health organizations write to request that you direct the Attorney General to instruct the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to review and reconsider its flawed June 29, 2007 Memorandum titled, Re: Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (OLC Memo). The OLC Memo reaches the erroneous and dangerous conclusion that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) provides a blanket override of a statutory non-discrimination provision. If left in place, the OLC Memo will tarnish the legacy of your work to advance fairness and equal treatment under the law for all Americans.

Some of us were members of the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which led the effort to persuade Congress to enact legislation after the United States Supreme Court sharply curtailed Free Exercise Clause protections in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). This effort culminated in 1993, when then-President William J. Clinton signed RFRA into law.

RFRA was intended to provide protection for free exercise rights, applying strict scrutiny, on a case-by-case basis, to federal laws that substantially burden religious exercise. RFRA was not intended to create blanket exemptions to laws that protect against discrimination.

Yet, in contrast to this, the OLC Memo relies on flawed legal analysis and wrongly asserts that RFRA is "reasonably construed to require" a federal agency to categorically exempt a religiously affiliated organization from a grant program's explicit statutory non- discrimination provision, thus permitting the grantee to discriminate in hiring with taxpayer funds without regard to the government's compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination.

The OLC Memo's broad and erroneous interpretation of RFRA has far-reaching consequences. For example, although the OLC Memo's conclusion is focused on one grantee in one Justice Department program, the Department has implemented it as a categorical exemption—that does not even require an individualized inquiry—to all religious hiring discrimination bans, most recently in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The Department of Labor has also cited the OLC Memo to adopt a categorical prohibition. Moreover, some have cited the OLC Memo in arguing that RFRA should broadly exempt religiously affiliated contractors from the nondiscrimination requirements in Executive Order 11246, including those you added just last year that bar government contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers. And, some are trying to extend its reach beyond the context of hiring: Several grantees and contractors have cited the OLC Memo to support their arguments that the government should create a blanket exemption that would allow them to refuse to provide services or referrals required under those funding agreements, specifically in the context of medical care for unaccompanied immigrant children who have suffered sexual abuse.

Throughout your presidency, you have committed to uphold this Nation's laws and values. Indeed, in March, when discussing the Indiana RFRA, your Press Secretary said discrimination is "not consistent with our values as a country that we hold dear." Even before you were elected President in 2008, you promised to end federally funded hiring discrimination, because of the government's profound and enduring commitment to upholding the civil rights principle that it must not fund discrimination. The deeply harmful OLC Memo severely undermines this commitment.

Contrary to the conclusion in the OLC Memo, RFRA is not a tool to categorically override statutory protections against religious hiring discrimination. Nor does it create an absolute free exercise right—without regard to countervailing compelling interests, as required by RFRA—to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers and participants in federally funded programs.

We accordingly request that the OLC Memo be reviewed and its erroneous and dangerous interpretation of RFRA be reconsidered as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our views.