Establishes sovereignty of Missouri law and protects religious freedoms
HB 1654 adds a new section to Missouri law declaring that the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri Constitution are the supreme law in the state, and that no law, rule, regulation, or legal code from a foreign government, international body, or religious system may be applied or enforced by Missouri courts, agencies, or political subdivisions if doing so would violate the federal or state constitution or Missouri public policy. The bill also states that nothing in the section may be used to restrict voluntary religious expression or practice protected by the Missouri and U.S. Constitutions.
The bill further makes it unlawful for any person, organization, foreign power, or entity to use coercion, threats, or force to impose or enforce foreign or religious law on another person or group in Missouri. Violations of that prohibition would be subject to criminal penalties under existing Missouri law, including offenses in chapters 565 and 574. It also gives the Missouri attorney general concurrent authority with local prosecutors to investigate and prosecute violations of the new section.
If enacted, HB 1654 would create a new statutory policy in Chapter 1, RSMo, limiting the use of foreign, international, or religious legal systems in Missouri proceedings and explicitly reinforcing constitutional supremacy. It would also add a new criminally enforceable prohibition against coercive attempts to impose foreign or religious law, while preserving voluntary religious exercise and federal supremacy. The bill would affect courts, state agencies, local governments, prosecutors, and any person or organization alleged to be using coercion to enforce such laws.
The available context suggests the bill was framed positively by its sponsor as a sovereignty and religious-freedom measure, as reflected in the caption and the bill’s structure. However, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of broader support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s referral to the Emerging Issues committee indicates it was still in the early stages of legislative consideration.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s broad references to “foreign government,” “international body,” and especially “religious system,” which could raise concerns about vagueness, overbreadth, or unintended effects on religious communities and private dispute resolution. Supporters would likely emphasize protection against coercion and preservation of constitutional supremacy, while critics may argue the measure is unnecessary, duplicative of existing law, or could be perceived as targeting particular faith traditions or legal practices. The attorney general’s concurrent prosecutorial authority may also be a point of debate because it expands state enforcement power.