Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Religion And Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances Constitutional Courts Act after heated public testimony and debate
Summary
After extensive public testimony both for and against, the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee voted to send SB 12‑33 (the Constitutional Courts Act) to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Supporters said the bill prevents parallel legal systems that would undermine constitutional rights; opponents warned the language may be overbroad and could face First Amendment and federal court challenges.
The Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee voted to send SB 12‑33, the Constitutional Courts Act, to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation after an extended hearing featuring multiple public witnesses and a contested debate among senators.
Sponsor Senator Dan Foreman framed the bill as a neutral reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy: it would prohibit courts from enforcing or applying judgments based on a body of religious or cultural law that "does not fully support and conform to the rights of citizens" as defined in the U.S. and Idaho constitutions. Foreman repeatedly said the bill does not ban private religious practice and that the Attorney General’s office and the Idaho Supreme Court staff had raised no constitutional objections in his consultations. "My bill says it would prohibit judgments based on a body of religious or cultural law that does not fully support and conform to the rights of citizens," Foreman said in his closing remarks.
Public testimony was divided. Lydia Strong, an attorney and recent naturalized citizen, supported the bill and emphasized that religious belief is fully protected while religiously motivated conduct may be regulated when it conflicts with neutral laws protecting safety and equal rights: "This is not about banning religions or beliefs. It is about ensuring that no religious plots supersede the constitution, criminal law, or civil rights protections," she told the committee. Opponents including Caleb Pierce (Idaho Family Policy Center) and Samuel Lehi (Idaho Freedom Foundation) argued the bill’s language could be read so broadly that judges might be barred from citing historical common‑law authorities such as Blackstone or Coke, potentially creating constitutional problems and litigation risks. Pierce asked the committee to hold the bill and urged rewording. Senator Laney warned that an Oklahoma law with similar phrasing had been challenged in federal court and counseled targeting 'foreign law' language as a narrower alternative.
During committee deliberations senators split over whether to send the bill to the 14th order (amending order) or to the floor. A substitute motion to send SB 12‑33 to the amending order passed on roll call, but the committee then proceeded with the original motion to send the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation; the final roll‑call vote carried and the bill was advanced to the Senate floor. Senators recorded both concerns about potential litigation risk and declarations that the constitution itself provides a backstop for any improper use of non‑constitutional law. The committee’s action moves SB 12‑33 forward for further consideration on the Senate floor.
