WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 776

Summary — HB 776: NC Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Status & Sponsor
- Short title: North Carolina Religious Freedom Restoration Act (HB 776)
- Primary sponsor: Rep. Echevarria (additional sponsors listed in bill)
- Status (per provided metadata): Passed 1st Reading; referred to Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House (April 2025).

Purpose / Intent
- The bill declares a legislative intent to protect the free exercise of religion from burdens caused by neutral laws, local ordinances, emergency orders, or homeowners’ associations (HOAs). It establishes a statutory Religious Freedom Restoration Act for North Carolina to ensure that any state action that burdens religious exercise is subject to strict scrutiny and to provide a private cause of action and remedies.

Key provisions
1. Amendment to the housing discrimination statute (G.S. 41A‑4)
- Adds that it is an unlawful discriminatory housing practice for any governmental entity or homeowners’ association to restrict religious gatherings in a dwelling or to burden the practice of religion in the neighborhood or area where the dwelling is located.

  1. New Article in Chapter 99D — “North Carolina Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (proposed G.S. 99D‑20 through 99D‑25)

    • Short title and statement of purpose: apply strict scrutiny where State action burdens exercise of religion and provide claims/defenses.
    • Definitions: broad definitions of “burden,” “exercise of religion,” “person,” and “state action.” “Burden” expressly includes withholding benefits, penalties, or exclusion from programs/facilities.
    • Protection standard (G.S. 99D‑23): State action that burdens religious exercise — even if arising from a neutral law of general applicability — is unlawful unless the government demonstrates the burden (as applied to that person) is (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest (strict scrutiny).
    • Private claim or defense: An individual whose religious exercise is or will likely be burdened may assert the violation as a claim or defense in any judicial proceeding (regardless whether the State is a party).
    • Remedies: “Appropriate relief” may include injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages (pecuniary and nonpecuniary), and attorneys’ fees and costs.
    • Severability clause.

  2. Amendment to emergency powers construction (G.S. 166A‑19.2)

    • Clarifies that religious institutions shall not be subject to emergency orders, executive orders, or local restrictions that impose additional limitations on them compared with similarly situated public or private entities responding to the same emergency.

Limitations and clarifications
- The bill states it does not authorize the State to burden religious belief, and it does not purport to interpret or modify the U.S. or State constitutional provisions regarding establishment of religion.
- The statute clarifies that governmental grants, benefits, or exemptions (to the extent allowed under the First Amendment) do not themselves violate the new Article; the text distinguishes “granting” from “denial” for purposes of that clarification.

Who would be affected
- State and local governments, municipalities, counties, public officials, and agencies (because “state action” is broadly defined).
- Homeowners’ associations and possibly private entities performing governmental functions or acting under local regulation where their actions are considered state action.
- Religious institutions, congregations, and individuals whose religious practices might be subject to local ordinances, zoning, HOA rules, or emergency orders.
- Courts and government counsel (increase in litigation to determine applicability and whether strict scrutiny is met).

Potential practical effects
- Raises the legal standard for governmental burdens on religious exercise to strict scrutiny in many contexts, likely increasing judicial review of local ordinances, emergency orders (e.g., public health measures), zoning/HOA restrictions that affect religious gatherings, and certain government benefit or permitting decisions.
- May lead to more civil suits and defenses invoking the statute; potential liability exposure for governments and HOAs, including damages and attorneys’ fees where violations are found.
- May limit the ability of local governments or HOAs to impose restrictions that incidentally hinder religious practice unless narrowly tailored to compelling interests.

Procedural notes
- As provided, HB 776 had a first reading and was referred to the Rules/Calendar committee (April 2025). Further committee action, floor votes, or amendments could change the bill’s text or scope.

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

Sign in to ask a question.