Bills › 90th General Assembly
Relating to the exercise of religion, and including effective date and applicability provisions
Sponsored by the House Judiciary (companion To Sf 2095 By Schultz) Committee
Where it is now
- Done: IntroducedJanuary 23, 2024
- Done: SubcommitteeJanuary 24, 2024
- Done: House committeeFebruary 8, 2024
- Done: Passes the HouseFebruary 29, 202461–33
- Skipped: Senate committeeSkipped
- Done: Passes the SenateFebruary 20, 202431–16
- Done: To the GovernorApril 2, 2024
- Done: Signed into lawApril 2, 2024
SF 2095 became law → The same legislation passed as SF 2095, so this version was set aside. Go to SF 2095 What’s a funnel?
What’s in it
AI summary Government agencies and local cities cannot pass rules that unfairly interfere with a person's religious practices. If a law treats religious activities more strictly than non-religious ones, courts must now check if the government has a very important reason for doing so. People who feel their religious rights have been blocked can sue the government to stop the rule and seek payment for damages.1
Read the official explanation
This bill prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s free exercise of religion. The bill prohibits governmental entities from treating religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk or treating religious conduct more restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit. Under current law, a court is not required to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing a law that burdens a person’s exercise of religion when such law is generally applicable. The bill provides that a court shall apply the compelling governmental interest test so that the government cannot substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that applying the law of general applicability is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The bill provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened by the government may assert such violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, and provides that the governmental entity may be liable for actual damages, attorney fees, costs, and other appropriate remedies. The bill also allows the person to obtain injunctive relief against the governmental entity. The bill prohibits a county or city from enacting a private or civil law that would burden a person’s free exercise of religion in violation of the bill. The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to all state and local laws.
Why it matters. Governmental entities, including cities and counties, would be prohibited from substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion or treating religious conduct more restrictively than comparable secular conduct. Individuals whose religious practices are substantially burdened could seek actual damages, attorney fees, and court orders to stop the government action.2
House subcommittee
Named January 24, 2024 (as HSB 614). On January 30, 2024 it recommended passage. Vote Total: 2-1.
Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part
25 written public comments to its subcommittee: January 30, 2024 (1), January 30, 2024 (24) · on the Legislature’s site
Iowa Code it changes
Lobbying
11 for · 18 against · 7 undecided · Who →
Family tree
Study bill
90th General Assembly
Tried before
This idea has been filed in an earlier General Assembly. None got through a chamber.
- HSB 593 HSB 59389th General Assembly · Subcommittee recommends passage · similarCleared committee
- SF 2170 Prohibiting the burdening of a person’s free exercise of religion89th General Assembly · Renumbered as SF 2284 · similarCleared committee
Similar bills this General Assembly
- SSB 1164 SSB 116490th General Assembly · In committeeNearly identical
Matched by wording or an identical title.