Bill Text: MI HB4075 | 2023-2024 | 102nd Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Civil rights: religious discrimination; Michigan religious freedom restoration act; create. Creates new act.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 1-0)
Status: (Introduced) 2023-03-15 - Notice Given To Discharge Committee [HB4075 Detail]
Download: Michigan-2023-HB4075-Introduced.html
HOUSE BILL NO. 4075
A bill to limit governmental action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion; to set forth legislative findings; to provide for asserting a burden on exercise of religion as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding; and to provide remedies.
the people of the state of michigan enact:
Sec. 1. This act may be cited as the "Michigan religious freedom restoration act".
Sec. 2. The legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental, and unalienable right secured by article 1 of the state constitution of 1963 and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) Laws neutral toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.
(c) Government should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.
(d) In 1993, the Congress of the United States enacted the religious freedom restoration act to address burdens placed on the exercise of religion in response to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Employment Division v Smith, 494 US 872 (1990), which virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(e) In City of Boerne v PF Flores, 521 US 507 (1997), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the religious freedom restoration act of 1993 infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(f) The compelling interest test set forth in prior court rulings, including Porth v Roman Catholic Diocese of Kalamazoo, 209 Mich App 630 (1995), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests in this state.
Sec. 3. The purposes of this act are the following:
(a) To guarantee application of the compelling interest test, as recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398 (1963); Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972); and Gonzales v O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 US 418 (2006), to all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.
(b) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
(a) "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(b) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion, including an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.
(c) "Government" means any branch, department, agency, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority, instrumentality, employee, official, or other entity of this state or a political subdivision of this state, or a person acting under color of law.
Sec. 5. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
(2) Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to that person's exercise of religion in that particular instance is both of the following:
(a) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
(b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(3) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain appropriate relief, including equitable relief, against government.
(4) A court or tribunal may award all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees, to a person who prevails against government under this section.
Sec. 6. (1) Section 5 applies to all laws of this state and of a political subdivision of this state, and the implementation of those laws, whether statutory or otherwise and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this act, except for a law of this state that explicitly excludes application by reference to this act.
(2) This act must be construed in favor of broad protection of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this act, the state constitution of 1963, and the Constitution of the United States.
(3) This act must not be construed as authorizing any burden on any religious belief.
(4) This act must not be construed as preempting or repealing any law that is equally or more protective of religious exercise than this act.
(5) This act must not be construed as affecting, interpreting, or in any way addressing those portions of the Constitution of the United States or the state constitution of 1963 that prohibit laws respecting the establishment of religion. Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under those constitutional provisions, is not a violation of this act. As used in this subsection, the term "granting," used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.
Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or any application of a provision to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance is not affected.
