Protect Maryland’s Religious Freedom
Oppose HB356
Our Stand: At-A-Glance
- PROBLEM: By explicitly defining “a substantial threat to public health” as a compelling governmental interest, the bill could make it easier for the state to justify public‑health mandates—including vaccination requirements—against religious‑freedom challenges, weakening rather than strengthening existing constitutional protections:
- Maryland already protects religious freedom in its Declaration of Rights, which states that no person shall be “molested” or burdened in their religious practice. HB 356 adds a new statutory framework that may conflict with or dilute these existing constitutional protections rather than reinforce them.
- The bill narrows religious‑freedom protections by defining key terms in ways that could limit how courts interpret them. For example, the bill’s specific definition of “substantial burden” may exclude burdens that Maryland courts currently recognize under broader constitutional standards.
- By codifying a particular version of the “compelling interest” test, the bill may unintentionally give the government more room to justify burdens on religion. Once the legislature defines what counts as a compelling interest, courts may defer to that definition even when it restricts religious exercise.
- The bill is unnecessary because Maryland courts already apply strict scrutiny to government actions that burden religious exercise. Creating a new statutory test risks replacing a strong, well‑developed constitutional doctrine with a weaker, more government‑friendly one.
- ACTION: There will be a hearing for HB356 before the Government, Labor, and Elections Committee on Tuesday, February 17, at 1 p.m. Please call or email. Or sign up on MyMGA on 2/13, this Friday, to give testimony if you’re able! Ask the committee members to OPPOSE HB356