Human Relations - Protection of the Free Exercise of Religion
HB0356 creates a new subtitle in the State Government Article establishing a Maryland Religious Freedom framework. It prohibits state and local governmental authorities from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even through generally applicable rules, unless the government can show the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so. The bill defines key terms such as “exercise of religion,” “governmental action,” “governmental authority,” and “person,” and applies to governmental actions taken on or after July 1, 2026, including some actions under preexisting laws, regulations, policies, or guidelines unless expressly excluded by state law.
The bill would add a new cause of action and defense for religious-liberty claims in Maryland law. A person aggrieved by a violation could seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees, with claims subject to the Maryland Tort Claims Act or Local Government Tort Claims Act where applicable. It also specifies how liability applies to officials, employees, and governmental entities, and clarifies that the subtitle does not limit existing protections under the Maryland Declaration of Rights or Constitution, but instead adds protections beyond them.
The bill’s text and preamble reflect strong support for expanding protections for free exercise of religion, framing the measure as a legislative adoption of a compelling-interest test for state and local government action. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment. Based on the bill language alone, the measure appears to be introduced in a favorable posture by its sponsors and designed as a rights-expansion bill.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between religious liberty and government regulation. Opponents may focus on the bill’s potential to allow religious exemptions from generally applicable laws and to create litigation exposure for state and local governments, while supporters would emphasize the need for heightened protection against burdens on religious exercise. Another possible issue is the bill’s broad definition of governmental action and its application to existing policies after the effective date, which could affect a wide range of administrative and regulatory decisions.