Iowa House Bill HF229

Iowa 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/8/23
• Refer: 2/8/23

Caption

A bill for an act relating to the standard of judicial review and providing a claim or defense when a state action burdens a person's exercise of religion, and including effective date provisions.

Impact

The introduction of HF229 may significantly affect state laws relating to the free exercise of religion. The bill applies broadly to all state and local laws, ensuring that any regulation or act that might burden religious practice is subject to heightened scrutiny during judicial review. This means that courts will be mandated to closely examine whether government actions align with the compelling interest test, thus providing greater protection for individual rights against various potential governmental restrictions on their religious expressions and beliefs. The bill also allows citizens to challenge governmental actions that infringe upon their religious practices, which may lead to increased litigation involving religious freedom claims.

Summary

House File 229, introduced by Representative Shipley, is designed to establish standards for judicial review regarding government actions that may substantially burden an individual's exercise of religion. The bill seeks to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder. This legislation asserts that government actions must not substantially impede a person's religious practices unless there is a compelling governmental interest that is achieved through the least restrictive means. Under the bill, individuals can assert claims related to the infringement of their religious freedoms in court proceedings, providing a legal avenue for those feeling their rights have been violated by state actions.

Contention

Despite the bill's intention to protect religious freedoms, it could stir notable contention among various stakeholders. Critics may argue that HF229 could pave the way for potential abuses of the law, allowing individuals or entities to invoke religious beliefs as a defense in various contexts, possibly undermining non-discrimination laws and other regulatory frameworks. Supporters maintain that the bill is a necessary measure to safeguard against government overreach in matters of personal faith. The diverging views reflect larger cultural and political battles over the interpretation of religious freedoms and the extent to which they can be exercised in conjunction with existing laws that govern public space and personal conduct.