S.F. _____ Section 1. Section 331.301, subsection 1, Code 2023, is 1 amended to read as follows: 2 1. A county may, except as expressly limited by the 3 Constitution of the State of Iowa, and if not inconsistent 4 with the laws of the general assembly, exercise any power 5 and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect 6 and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the 7 county or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the 8 peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience 9 of its residents. This grant of home rule powers does not 10 include the power to enact private or civil law governing 11 civil relationships, except as incident to an exercise of an 12 independent county power , or to enact private or civil law 13 which violates section 675.4 . 14 Sec. 2. Section 364.1, Code 2023, is amended to read as 15 follows: 16 364.1 Scope. 17 A city may, except as expressly limited by the Constitution 18 of the State of Iowa, and if not inconsistent with the laws 19 of the general assembly, exercise any power and perform 20 any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve 21 the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its 22 residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, 23 health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents. 24 This grant of home rule powers does not include the power 25 to enact private or civil law governing civil relationships, 26 except as incident to an exercise of an independent city power , 27 or to enact private or civil law which violates section 675.4 . 28 Sec. 3. NEW SECTION . 675.1 Short title. 29 This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the 30 “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” . 31 Sec. 4. NEW SECTION . 675.2 Legislative purpose and intent. 32 The purpose and intent of this chapter is all of the 33 following: 34 1. To restore the compelling governmental interest test 35 -1- LSB 1336XC (1) 90 cm/ns 1/ 4

S.F. _____ as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and 1 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and to guarantee its 2 application in all cases where the free exercise of religion is 3 substantially burdened by state action. 4 2. That this chapter be interpreted consistent with the 5 Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et 6 seq., federal case law, and federal jurisprudence. 7 3. To provide a claim or defense to a person whose exercise 8 of religion is substantially burdened by state action. 9 Sec. 5. NEW SECTION . 675.3 Definitions. 10 As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise 11 requires: 12 1. “Compelling governmental interest” means a governmental 13 interest of the highest order that cannot otherwise be achieved 14 without burdening the exercise of religion. 15 2. “Exercise of religion” means the practice or observance 16 of religion. “Exercise of religion” includes but is not 17 limited to the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner 18 substantially motivated by one’s sincerely held religious 19 belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to 20 a larger system of religious belief. 21 3. “State action” means the implementation or application 22 of any law, including but not limited to state and local laws, 23 ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies, whether statutory 24 or otherwise, or other action by the state or a political 25 subdivision, including a local government, municipality, 26 instrumentality, or public official authorized by law. 27 4. “Substantially burden” means any action that directly 28 or indirectly constrains, inhibits, curtails, or denies the 29 exercise of religion by any person or compels any action 30 contrary to a person’s exercise of religion and includes but 31 is not limited to withholding of benefits; assessment of 32 criminal, civil, or administrative penalties; or exclusion from 33 governmental programs or access to governmental facilities. 34 Sec. 6. NEW SECTION . 675.4 Free exercise of religion 35 -2- LSB 1336XC (1) 90 cm/ns 2/ 4

S.F. _____ protected. 1 1. Government shall not substantially burden a person’s 2 exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule 3 of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates 4 that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion 5 is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and 6 is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling 7 governmental interest. 8 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a state 9 agency, political subdivision, or any elected or appointed 10 official or employee of this state shall not do any of the 11 following: 12 a. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than 13 comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or 14 benefit. 15 b. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any 16 secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk. 17 3. A person whose exercise of religion has been 18 substantially burdened in violation of this chapter may 19 assert such violation as a claim or defense in a judicial 20 or administrative proceeding and obtain appropriate relief, 21 including damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate 22 redress. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this 23 chapter shall be governed by the general rules of standing 24 under state and federal law. The plaintiff, if the prevailing 25 party, may also recover reasonable attorney fees and costs. 26 Sec. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act, being deemed of immediate 27 importance, takes effect upon enactment. 28 Sec. 8. APPLICABILITY. This Act applies to all state and 29 local laws and the implementation of state and local laws, 30 whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before, on, 31 or after the effective date of this Act. 32 EXPLANATION 33 The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with 34 the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly. 35 -3- LSB 1336XC (1) 90 cm/ns 3/ 4

S.F. _____ This bill prohibits a governmental entity from substantially 1 burdening a person’s free exercise of religion. The bill 2 prohibits governmental entities from treating religious 3 conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of 4 reasonably comparable risk or treating religious conduct more 5 restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of 6 alleged economic need or benefit. 7 Under current law, a court is not required to apply 8 heightened scrutiny when reviewing a law that burdens a 9 person’s exercise of religion when such law is generally 10 applicable. The bill provides that a court shall apply the 11 compelling governmental interest test set forth in Sherbert 12 v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 13 U.S. 205 (1972), in such cases, so that the government cannot 14 substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless 15 the government demonstrates that applying the law of general 16 applicability is in furtherance of a compelling governmental 17 interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that 18 interest. The bill provides that a person whose exercise of 19 religion has been substantially burdened by the government may 20 assert such violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or 21 administrative proceeding, and provides that the governmental 22 entity may be liable for actual damages, attorney fees, costs, 23 and other appropriate remedies. The bill also allows the 24 person to obtain injunctive relief against the governmental 25 entity. 26 The bill prohibits a county or city from enacting a private 27 or civil law that would burden a person’s free exercise of 28 religion in violation of the bill. 29 The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to all state 30 and local laws. 31 -4- LSB 1336XC (1) 90 cm/ns 4/ 4