Texas Senate Bill SB1681

Texas 2021 - 87th Regular

Caption

Relating to the protection of religious organizations.

Impact

A significant aspect of SB1681 is its provision for waiving governmental and sovereign immunity to allow individuals to sue state and political subdivisions if their constitutional rights are infringed upon. This change is poised to empower citizens who feel that their religious freedoms are compromised by state action, potentially leading to more legal challenges against governmental entities. Furthermore, the bill facilitates the Attorney General's ability to litigate on behalf of individuals against governmental entities, reinforcing the state's commitment to protecting religious freedoms.

Summary

SB1681 introduces provisions aimed at enhancing the protection of religious organizations in Texas. The bill defines 'religious organization' as any group established to support and propagate sincerely held religious beliefs. It creates a new chapter in the Government Code specifically dedicated to this issue, allowing individuals to assert claims against governmental entities for violations of their rights as specified under Section 6-a of the Texas Constitution. This ability is granted regardless of whether administrative remedies have been pursued, streamlining the process for seeking redress.

Contention

While supporters of the bill argue it robustly safeguards the free exercise of religion, opponents express concerns about the implications of allowing individuals to sue the state, fearing an increase in frivolous lawsuits and potential overreach. Critics also point out that the bill might lead to biased interpretations of what constitutes a violation of religious freedoms, raising the possibility of unintended consequences that could challenge the separation of church and state principles. Additionally, the bill's effectiveness hinges on a voter-approved constitutional amendment that prevents limits on religious services by governmental bodies, adding another layer of complexity and potential debate.