Civil liberties; Civil Liberties Protection Act; definitions; state government entities; political subdivisions; prohibited actions; Attorney General; enforcement; effective date.
HB3914, the Civil Liberties Protection Act, would prohibit Oklahoma state agencies and political subdivisions from using state funds or taking actions that directly violate rights protected by the U.S. Constitution or by federal laws that protect those rights. The bill also bars state entities from assisting other entities, including federally authorized entities, when that assistance would facilitate a rights violation. It defines “unconstitutional federal actions” to include mass surveillance, pregnancy-related data collection, religious registries, and raids on houses of worship, schools, or hospitals.
The bill further prohibits state agencies from collecting, retaining, or disclosing pregnancy-related data or religious affiliation information for federal enforcement purposes, and it voids any intergovernmental agreement requiring such sharing within Oklahoma. It directs the Attorney General to provide legal defense for Oklahomans targeted by unconstitutional federal actions and to issue an annual public report on assistance requests made under the act, including denials. It also creates a civil cause of action for unlawful cooperation with prohibited federal agencies or entities and authorizes discipline for employees or contract changes or cancellation for contractors who violate the act.
If enacted, HB3914 would add new provisions to Title 25 of the Oklahoma Statutes restricting how state agencies, political subdivisions, employees, and contractors may cooperate with federal or other entities when constitutional rights are implicated. It would create new state-level duties around data handling, legal defense, reporting, enforcement, and civil liability, while also invalidating certain intergovernmental agreements related to pregnancy or religious data sharing. The bill would take effect November 1, 2026.
The available context shows limited formal debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented committee or floor sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a civil-liberties and privacy protection bill, suggesting support from sponsors and likely supporters concerned about surveillance, reproductive privacy, and religious freedom. No opposing arguments are recorded in the provided history.
The main points of contention are likely to center on federalism, enforcement authority, and the scope of the bill’s restrictions. Critics could argue that the measure may interfere with cooperation between state and federal authorities, especially where federal law or federal investigations are involved, while supporters would emphasize preventing state participation in rights violations and protecting privacy, religious liberty, and bodily autonomy. The bill’s broad definitions and the nullification of data-sharing agreements may also raise concerns about administrative burden and legal uncertainty for agencies and contractors.