Kansas House Bill HB2311

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/6/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Engrossed: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Enrolled: 3/27/25
• Vetoed: 4/10/25
• Override: 4/10/25

Caption

Prohibiting the secretary from adopting and enforcing policies for placement, custody and appointment of a custodian that may conflict with sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity and creating a right of action for violations.

Summary

HB2311 would restrict the Kansas secretary for children and families from adopting or enforcing placement, custody, adoption, or foster-care licensing policies that require a person to affirm, accept, or support government positions on sexual orientation or gender identity when doing so would conflict with the person’s sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. It also bars the department from denying otherwise eligible placement, custody, or licensing opportunities solely because of those beliefs or because a person intends to guide a child consistent with them. The bill applies to out-of-home placements, adoptive placements, permanent or SOUL custodians, and licensure under the child-care licensing statutes. It expressly preserves the secretary’s ability to consider the beliefs of the child, biological family, or community in best-interests determinations, and it does not remove the department’s general duty to place children according to the child’s best interests under existing law. The bill creates a private right of action allowing an aggrieved person to recover actual damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney fees from the Department for Children and Families, and it makes the department liable for violations by contractors while shielding contractors themselves from direct suit under this section.

Impact

HB2311 would add a new provision to the revised Kansas code for care of children limiting how the Department for Children and Families may set and enforce policies for foster care, adoption, custody, and related licensing. In practice, it would constrain agency rules that could be viewed as requiring affirmation of LGBTQ-related policies and would create potential liability for the department if an applicant or caregiver is denied placement or licensure based on sincerely held religious or moral beliefs about sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill also authorizes damages and attorney fees, which could increase litigation exposure for the state and its contractors.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the bill was strongly supported by Republican majorities in both chambers, but also faced substantial opposition, as shown by repeated nay votes on final passage and on the veto override. The bill ultimately advanced through both chambers and survived veto override votes, indicating enough support to enact it despite controversy. The pattern of votes reflects a polarized debate, with supporters treating it as a religious liberty and conscience protection measure and opponents viewing it as a restriction on child-welfare placement standards and LGBTQ nondiscrimination policies.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether the state should be allowed to exclude or limit foster/adoptive placements based on a person’s refusal to affirm LGBTQ-related policies, or whether such beliefs should be disqualifying when they affect a child’s welfare. Supporters are likely to argue the bill protects sincerely held religious and moral beliefs and prevents government coercion, while opponents are likely to argue it could reduce the pool of available caregivers and permit discrimination in child placement decisions. Another disputed issue is the bill’s private right of action and state liability for contractor conduct, which could be seen either as necessary enforcement or as an invitation to lawsuits and administrative conflict.