WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 952

Enact the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act

136th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Tex Fischer and 1 co-sponsor

Ohio must show a government burden on religious exercise meets strict scrutiny, or relieve the burden, with potential attorney’s fees for winning parties.

Referred to committee
#stategovernment #stateandlocalgovernment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 952

Summary of HB 952 (Ohio) – Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Purpose and intent

HB 952 seeks to enact a state-level framework protecting religious exercise from substantial governmental burdens. Titled the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the measure aims to ensure that individuals can freely practice their religion unless a government action can be shown to satisfy strict scrutiny, balancing religious rights against compelling state interests.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definitions (Section 9.51 A):

    • “Exercise of religion” includes any religious practice or observance, whether or not compelled by a religious belief, aligning with both the Ohio Constitution and the U.S. First Amendment free exercise protections.
    • “Governmental entity” covers the state, its branches and subdivisions, and any person acting under color of state law.

  • Protection from burdens (Section 9.51 B–C):

    • Governmental entities may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden arises from generally applicable rules, subject to Division (C).
    • A governmental entity may substantially burden religious exercise if:
    • The burden furthers a compelling governmental interest.
    • The burden is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

  • Relief and remedies (Section 9.51 D–E):

    • Individuals whose religious exercise is burdened can bring an action in the appropriate state common pleas court (Franklin County or the county of residence) seeking relief against the governmental entity.
    • Governmental entities waive their immunity from liability for actions brought under this section, overriding typical sovereign or governmental immunity defenses.

  • Attorney’s fees (Section 9.51 E):

    • Courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing non-governmental party in enforcement actions.
    • Special provision protects judicial officers: costs or attorney’s fees cannot be charged for acts or omissions taken in a judicial capacity unless the act or omission was clearly beyond the officer’s jurisdiction.

  • Limitations and clarifications (Section 9.51 F):

    • The act does not address or modify the Establishment Clause restrictions of the First Amendment.
    • Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions (to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause) does not violate this act; however, denial of funding is not considered “granting” under this provision.

  • Designation (Section 9.51 H):

    • The act is named the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Who/what is affected

  • Governmental entities in Ohio (state, local governments, and entities acting under color of state law) are constrained in burdens on religious exercise.
  • Individuals whose religious practices are burdened by government actions can sue for relief in state courts.
  • Potential liability exposure for government entities under civil action, with eligible prevailing parties able to recover attorney’s fees.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Legal action paving: Individuals may bring suit in the common pleas court of Franklin County or the county of residence.
  • Immunity: The act removes governmental immunity for claims arising under its provisions.
  • Effective date: The bill was introduced in the 136th General Assembly during the 2025-2026 regular session; as introduced, it outlines the framework but does not specify an immediate effective date beyond passage.

Overall impact

HB 952 would create a Ohio-specific standard requiring government actions to pass strict scrutiny when they burden religious exercise, with a remedy mechanism for plaintiffs and potential attorney’s fees for prevailing non-governmental parties. It mirrors the general structure of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts found in other states, while expressly preserving Establishment Clause boundaries.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.