HB 540 creates a new criminal offense for interference with a religious service. A person commits the offense if, with the intent to prevent or disrupt a religious service held by a religious organization, they obstruct the service or access to it, damage or destroy the organization’s property, or use force or threats to injure, intimidate, or interfere with people attending or trying to attend the service. The offense is classified as a Class A misdemeanor.
The bill also creates a new civil cause of action for victims and religious organizations. A person who violates the new offense may be sued in circuit court by an affected worshipper or the religious organization, with available remedies including injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages of $10,000 per violation, costs, expert witness fees, and attorney’s fees. The Attorney General is also authorized to bring a civil action, if no private action has already been filed, and may seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation. Liability is joint and several for multiple defendants involved in the same violation.
In addition to the new religious-service provisions, the bill amends Kentucky’s definitions in KRS 525.010 and revises the definition of “service animal” to include several categories of working dogs and other animals used by law enforcement, such as bomb detection, narcotic detection, patrol, tracking, search and rescue, cadaver, electronic detection, and accelerant detection animals. It also updates related definitional language for “religious organization,” “religious service,” “public place,” and “riot,” and removes older, narrower wording from the statute.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand criminal and civil protections for houses of worship and worshippers, while also broadening and clarifying certain criminal-law definitions in Chapter 525. It would give prosecutors, private plaintiffs, and the Attorney General additional tools to respond to disruptions at religious services and to recover damages for resulting harm. It also makes a separate change to Kentucky’s assault-on-service-animal statute by clarifying the covered animals and excluding assistance dogs from that specific offense definition.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure and purpose. The measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and religious-freedom protection bill, likely appealing to supporters of stronger safeguards for worship services. Potential points of contention may include whether the new offense is necessary given existing disorderly conduct, trespass, assault, or property-damage laws, and whether the civil penalties and attorney-fee provisions could be viewed as overly broad or as creating additional litigation risk for protest activity near religious gatherings.
HB 540 would add a new offense to KRS Chapter 525 for interference with a religious service and create a parallel civil enforcement scheme in KRS Chapter 411. It would also amend statutory definitions in KRS 525.010, including “religious organization,” “religious service,” “public place,” “riot,” and “service animal,” and would revise KRS 525.200 governing assault on a service animal. The bill would therefore affect criminal liability, civil remedies, and the scope of protected conduct and protected animals under Kentucky law.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no direct record of legislative debate to measure support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure is presented as a protection for religious worship and appears likely to be viewed favorably by supporters of religious liberty and public-order enforcement. At the same time, the inclusion of private civil damages, attorney’s fees, and Attorney General enforcement suggests the bill could draw scrutiny from those concerned about overcriminalization or the potential chilling effect on protest or expressive conduct near religious services.
The main likely points of contention are the breadth of the new offense and the civil enforcement provisions. Critics may question whether conduct that disrupts a service is already covered by existing criminal statutes, and whether the bill’s intent standard and terms like “obstruct,” “interfere,” and “intimidate” could be applied too broadly. Another possible issue is the civil remedy structure, especially the $10,000 statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and AG authority, which could be seen as creating strong deterrence but also as inviting litigation. Supporters are likely to emphasize protection of worshippers, houses of worship, and religious exercise.