Committee advances bill to strengthen religious-liberty review; critics warn of broad private suits

Senate Judiciary Committee members advanced Senate Bill 60 on a committee substitute on a voice vote after public testimony and questions, reporting the measure favorably with the committee's opinion that the bill should pass.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Steve Rawlings (Senate District 11), would amend KRS 446.35 to raise evidentiary standards in claims that government actions burden religious exercise, expand remedies to include costs and attorney's fees, and include a waiver of sovereign immunity that would allow private suits against state or local government actors.

Proponents argued the measure clarifies and strengthens protections already recognized in law. "What RFRA's basically say is that government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise," Rawlings told the committee. He said the bill would require government actions that burden religious exercise to be justified by "clear and convincing evidence of a compelling interest." He characterized the bill as a commitment to protecting a fundamental right.

Opponents and several faith and civil‑rights witnesses told the committee the bill, as written, is broader than existing state law and could weaken enforcement of local anti‑discrimination ordinances. Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, said in testimony that "the bill is very similar to the version from last year. Senate Bill 60 simply opens the door to jackpot justice for national interest groups like Alliance Defending Freedom ... to rake in millions of Kentucky tax dollars from local governments." He said 24 Kentucky communities have local fairness ordinances and warned the measure could be used to challenge civil‑rights, domestic‑violence and property laws.

Sam Markison, a faculty member at the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville and a former EEOC attorney, told senators Kentucky already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that the proposed language would "go an unfortunate step further" by burdening local governments' ability to enforce anti‑discrimination laws. Rabbi Ben Fried of Knesset Israel Synagogue said religious freedom should not be absolute if it harms others and urged explicit limits so the bill would not "supersede local anti discrimination laws and ordinances."

Greg Baylor, who identified himself as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told the committee the bill would not predetermine case outcomes and that courts would still apply a balancing test. "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not dictate the outcome of particular cases," Baylor said, adding that public health and other compelling interests can justify limits.

Senators questioned how the bill would interact with local public‑health rules and other regulatory requirements. One senator asked whether school boards could be exposed to personal liability if they require vaccinations; witnesses and the sponsor repeatedly said the statutory balancing test and factual determinations would remain in the hands of judges.

After public testimony and questioning, the committee adopted the substitute and later voted to report SB 60 favorably with the comment that it should pass. Several senators offered brief explanations of their votes on the record during the roll call.

The committee did not adopt the amendment language suggested by opponents during testimony; advocates for clarifying language had asked the panel to add exceptions to prevent the statute from undermining local anti‑discrimination enforcement.

SB 60 now moves to the next step in the legislative process with the committee's favorable report; no final action by the full Senate was recorded in the committee transcript.

Less central details discussed included references to national and state indexes of religious‑liberty protections and a public opinion poll (Mason Dixon) cited by witnesses as evidence of voter opposition to bills like SB 60.