An Act To Enact the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act
Maine Legislature, Session 127, LD 1340
Committee: Judiciary
Sponsors: BURNS, CRAFTS, CUSHING, DAVIS, MASON, THIBODEAU, BEAR, HANINGTON, LONG, PICKETT

Legislative Document 
No. 1340 
S.P. 485 
In Senate, April 14, 2015 
An Act To Enact the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act 
Reference to the Committee on Judiciary suggested and ordered printed. 
HEATHER J.R. PRIEST 
Secretary of the Senate 
Presented by Senator BURNS of Washington. 
Cosponsored by Representative CRAFTS of Lisbon and 
Senators: CUSHING of Penobscot, DAVIS of Piscataquis, MASON of Androscoggin, 
President THIBODEAU of Waldo, Representatives: BEAR of the Houlton Band of Maliseet 
Indians, HANINGTON of Lincoln, LONG of Sherman, PICKETT of Dixfield. 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1.  5 MRSA c. 337-D is enacted to read: 
CHAPTER 337-D 
PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT 
§4801.  Short title 
This chapter may be known and cited as "the Preservation of Religious Freedom 
Act." 
§4802.  Findings 
The Legislature makes the following findings: 
1.  Federal Constitution.  The framers of the United States Constitution, recognizing 
free exercise of religion as a fundamental and unalienable right, secured its protection in 
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; 
2.  State Constitution.  The framers of the Constitution of Maine, recognizing free 
exercise of religion as a fundamental and unalienable right, secured its protection in the 
Constitution of Maine; 
3.  Exercise of religion burdened.  Laws neutral toward religion may burden 
exercise of religion as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise; 
4.  Compelling government interest.  Government should not burden the free 
exercise of religion without a compelling governmental interest; 
5.  Effect of Supreme Court precedent.  Prior to 1990, the United States Supreme 
Court recognized that laws burdening the free exercise of religion had to be justified by a 
compelling governmental interest.  In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 
(1990), the United States Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the 
government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward 
religion; 
6.  Reassertion of compelling interest test.  The compelling interest test set forth in 
this Act and in federal as well as Maine court rulings prior to Employment Division v. 
Smith, including Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 
U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty 
and competing governmental interests; and 
7.  Role of legislative bodies to protect free exercise of religion.  The United States 
Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do 
Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), indicates that legislative bodies may enact statutory law for 
their jurisdictions requiring that laws burdening the free exercise of religion be justified 
by a compelling governmental interest. Many states have done so, passing laws similar to 
this Act. 
§4803.  Purposes 
The purposes of this Act are: 
1.  Application of compelling interest test.  To restore the compelling interest test 
as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 
(1963), and to guarantee its application in all cases in which the free exercise of 
religion is substantially burdened; and 
2.  Provide claim or defense.  To provide a claim or defense to a person or persons 
whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened. 
§4804.  Definitions 
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have 
the following meanings. 
1.  Compelling governmental interest.  "Compelling governmental interest" means 
a governmental interest of the highest magnitude. 
2.  Exercise of religion.  "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of 
religion.  "Exercise of religion" includes, but is not limited to, the ability to act or refuse 
to act in a manner substantially motivated by a person's sincerely held religious belief, 
whether or not the exercise of religion is compulsory or central to a larger system of 
religious belief. 
3.  Government.  "Government" means the State, a political subdivision of the State 
and any local government, municipality, instrumentality or public official authorized by 
law in the State. 
4.  Substantially burden.  "Substantially burden" means taking an action, including 
the implementation or application of a law, that directly or indirectly constrains, inhibits, 
curtails or denies the exercise of religion by a person or compels an action contrary to a 
person's exercise of religion.  "Substantially burden" includes, but is not limited to, 
withholding benefits from a person, assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties 
or excluding a person from government programs or access to government facilities. 
§4805.  Free exercise of religion protected 
1.   Substantial burden prohibited; exceptions.  Government may not substantially 
burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general 
applicability, unless applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in this 
particular instance: 
A.  Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and 
B.  Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 
2.  Claim or defense; relief.  A person whose exercise of religion has been 
substantially burdened in violation of this Act may assert the violation as a claim or 
defense in a judicial proceeding.  The person asserting such a claim or defense may 
obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the government.  Appropriate relief 
includes, but is not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages 
and costs and attorney's fees. 
SUMMARY 
This bill enacts the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.  It codifies legislative 
findings that summarize the enshrinement of the right to the free exercise of religion in 
the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Maine and case law of the Maine 
Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court interpreting the 
fundamental and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, as well as the extent to 
which a legislative body can legislate in this area. 
The Preservation of Religious Freedom Act has as its purpose the restoration of the 
compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and 
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).  The Act guarantees the application of the 
compelling interest test in all cases in which the government substantially burdens the 
exercise of religion and provides a claim or defense to a person whose exercise of 
religion is burdened by the government. 
The Act provides that the government may not directly or indirectly substantially 
burden a person's exercise of religion unless the application of the burden to the person is 
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is accomplished through the 
least restrictive means. 
The Act allows a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened 
in violation of the Act to assert the violation as a claim or defense in a court action. 
The Act's requirement that the government's infringement upon the free exercise of 
religion be justified by a compelling interest is similar to the requirement placed on the 
Federal Government through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and that of 
other states that have passed similar protections.