SB 60 would amend Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act-style statute, KRS 446.350, to strengthen protections for religious exercise against state and local government action. The bill defines “government action” broadly to include laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and actions by public officials or local governments, and it expands the definition of a “substantial burden” to include indirect pressures such as withholding benefits, imposing penalties, or excluding a person from government programs or facilities.
Under the bill, government action may not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest and has used the least restrictive means. A person whose religious exercise is substantially burdened could raise the violation as a claim or defense in court or an administrative proceeding and recover appropriate relief, including costs and attorney’s fees. The bill also applies to existing and future government actions, waives sovereign and governmental immunity for purposes of the section, and includes severability language.
Impact
SB 60 would broaden and reinforce Kentucky’s statutory protections for religious liberty by making it easier for individuals and religious claimants to challenge state or local government actions that burden religious exercise. It would affect a wide range of public entities and officials, including state agencies, counties, cities, and other political subdivisions, and it would apply retroactively to government actions already in place as well as future laws unless expressly excluded. The bill would also expose government defendants to claims for relief and attorney’s fees and would limit the state’s ability to rely on immunity defenses in cases brought under this section.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had strong support in the Senate, passing third reading 29-7. The caption and text frame the measure as a religious liberty restoration bill, indicating a favorable posture among supporters toward expanding protections for religiously motivated conduct. No committee transcript is available, so the record here shows support in floor voting but does not provide detailed debate or negotiated changes.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad definition of substantial burden, its application to indirect consequences such as loss of benefits or access, and its use of a heightened clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for government justification. Critics may view the measure as making it harder for state and local governments to enforce generally applicable laws, while supporters likely see it as necessary to prevent government interference with sincerely held religious beliefs. The waiver of sovereign and governmental immunity and the bill’s retroactive application are also likely to be controversial because they expand potential litigation against public entities.