Wire
Ohio residents could challenge laws they say burden religion
The proposed Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act lets people sue state or local governments if a rule substantially interferes with religious practice, forcing officials to meet the strictest legal test in court.
A proposal in Ohio would give residents a new legal lever if they believe a government rule interferes with their religious practice, allowing them to challenge the state or a local government directly in court.
The measure, titled the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act, says government may not "substantially burden" a person’s exercise of religion, even when the rule is a general law that applies to everyone rather than one aimed specifically at religion.
If a burden exists, officials would have to justify it under one of the strictest standards used in American law. The government would need to show the action advances a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means available to achieve that goal.
A high bar for government rules
The proposal applies broadly across Ohio government. It covers the state itself along with political subdivisions such as cities and counties, including their branches, departments, agencies, officials and others acting under color of state law.
When someone claims a rule substantially burdens their religious exercise, the burden in court would shift to the government. Officials would have to prove two things: that the rule serves a compelling interest and that no less restrictive approach could achieve the same result.
That test is commonly known as strict scrutiny. It is one of the toughest legal standards courts apply, and it can make it more difficult for governments to defend policies once a judge agrees that a substantial burden on religious exercise exists.
Broad definition of religious exercise
The bill defines religious exercise in expansive terms. It covers any exercise of religion, whether or not the conduct is required by or central to a particular system of belief.
That wording means courts would not need to decide whether a specific practice is mandatory within a faith tradition. If the activity is part of a person’s religious exercise, the protection could apply.
The proposal also defines a governmental entity broadly, including the state and its branches as well as agencies, officials and political subdivisions such as cities or counties.
A direct path to court