I think Willyloman is right, but I'd like to add some speculation on the legal side of it as I think our freedoms are fairly safe if we're already faded away into the wind.
The free exercise provision* only allows religionists to curtail the freedoms and rights of people within the religious community that they willingly joined (as the Judge said in Boer v WTS). It doesn?t mean a religion can reach out and harm people (by defamation, stalking or other unlawful harassment) who clearly aren't of their religion and don't consent to the rules of that religion, even if they once were and once did.
So what? Well, I still remember a WT from around 1991 or so describing in gory detail the inherently demonic nature of people who are DF or DA (and now No Longer... NL?). So we know saying you're "DA/DF/NL" is a proxy for calling you "the son of the Devil" or similar or worse as published many times over many years.
I think if we've clearly left the org some years ago** and don't by our actions consent to the religious rules of the JW's anymore, then they'd be putting themselves at risk of an action in slander WITHOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTION if they made a DF/DA/NL announcement (and thus called you nasty, nasty names) after you've clearly left their religious community.
The trick will come when they 'adjust' the procedure and meaning behind the NL process. They have smart people working on all this and they'll probably do a good job of it. But we need to remember our rights as free citizens of liberal democratic countries - they think they're liteally above Ceaser's law but they're wrong.
Max
* it doesn?t matter much if it's US or British originated law as the basic principle is universal in the western world.
** per the elders book of due WTS process, also an OKM of about 1975 defined 'some years' as 3 years