SB2358 creates the Protecting Religious Assembly in States of Emergency Act, or the PRAISE Act. The bill requires state and local emergency orders, rules, ordinances, or similar directives that close or limit businesses or public facilities to exempt places of worship to the same extent that any other entity or set of entities is exempted. In practical terms, if an emergency restriction allows some secular businesses or facilities to remain open or operate at reduced capacity, religious organizations’ worship spaces must receive the same level of access or exemption.
The bill also directs that the law be construed to give religious organizations and their places of worship the same degree of freedom to meet as the most favored exempt entity or group. It defines “place of worship” broadly to include churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and similar religious buildings and their grounds. In addition, it authorizes enforcement through civil lawsuits brought in circuit court by affected persons or religious organizations, with available remedies including injunctions, compensatory damages, nominal damages, findings of violation, and punitive damages when malice or recklessness is shown.
SB2358 would affect Illinois emergency-management law by adding a new standalone act and making a conforming amendment to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act. It also limits home rule authority, meaning local governments could not regulate places of worship in a way that conflicts with the new protections. The bill would therefore constrain both state and local emergency-response powers when those powers are used to impose selective closures or restrictions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly protective of religious exercise and assembly during emergencies. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests a policy response to concerns that religious institutions could be treated less favorably than comparable secular entities during public health or safety emergencies.
The main point of contention likely centers on balancing religious-liberty protections against public-health and emergency-management authority. Supporters would view the bill as preventing unequal treatment of houses of worship, while critics may argue it could reduce flexibility for state and local officials to impose uniform emergency restrictions or to tailor rules based on public-health risk. The civil-enforcement provisions and the limitation on home rule powers are likely to be the most significant legal and policy flashpoints.
Impact
The bill would add a new Illinois law requiring equal treatment of places of worship during emergency-related closures or restrictions when other entities receive exemptions. It would also amend the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act to align emergency powers with the new religious-assembly protections, and it would preempt inconsistent home rule regulations by local governments. Affected parties include state and local officials issuing emergency orders, religious organizations, and individuals or congregations seeking judicial relief for alleged unequal treatment.
Sentiment
The bill’s tone is clearly favorable to religious exercise and assembly, framing worship spaces as entitled to the same exemptions as the most favored secular entities during emergencies. No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text itself. Based on the language, the measure appears designed to respond to concerns about restrictions on houses of worship during emergency declarations.
Contention
The likely controversy is whether the bill unduly limits the discretion of state and local governments to manage emergencies, especially public-health emergencies, by requiring worship spaces to be exempt whenever any comparable entity is exempted. Supporters are likely religious-liberty advocates and faith organizations seeking equal treatment; opponents are likely public-health officials, local governments, and others concerned about reduced flexibility in emergency response. The private right of action, damages remedies, and home rule preemption are additional likely points of dispute.
Protects the rights of employees in the workplace relating to free speech, assembly and religion, as well as attendance at employer-sponsored meetings regarding political or religious matters.
Protects the rights of employees in the workplace relating to free speech, assembly and religion, as well as attendance at employer-sponsored meetings regarding political or religious matters.