June 10, 2026 · Judiciary Committee · 2,298 words · 7 speakers · 34 segments
The House Judiciary Committee will come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chairman Thomas? Yes. Vice Chair Swaringen? Here. Ranking Member Sindenburg? Here. Representative Pickle-Antonio? Here. Representative Callender? Here. Representative Matthews? Here. Representative Muhammad? Here. Representative Adieso? Here. Representative Wolfslager? Here. Representative Plummer? Here. Representative Stewart? Here. Representative Timms? Here. Representative Williams? Here. We have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full committee please review the minutes from the last committee meeting. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. As a reminder, if they take any audio or video of this committee, you have to fill out one of the forms there and bring it up to me to sign before you start doing that. I'd now like to call up House Bill 611 for its fourth hearing.
I call on Representative Callender for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we favorably report out House Bill 611 and recommend its placement on the calendar and passage on the floor.
Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Thomas? Yes. Vice Chair Swearingen? Yes. Ranking Member Sindenburg? Yes. Representative Piccolo-Antonio? Yes. Representative Callender? Yes. Representative Matthews? Yes. Representative Mohamed? Yes. Representative Adagoso? Yes. Representative Wollsinger? Yes. Representative Plummer? Yes. Representative Seward? Yes. Representative Thames? Yes. Representative Williams? Yes. With sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported. The roll will stay open until noon today in the clerk's office. This concludes the fourth and final hearing for House Bill 611. I'd now like to call up House Bill 459 for its fourth hearing. I call on Representative Timms or Piccolantonio for a motion. Representative Timms for a motion.
Thank you, Chair. I move to amend House Bill 459 with Amendment 3042.
This amendment is in order and can be found in your iPads. Please, can you explain the amendment?
Thank you, Chair. Yes, this amendment comes from a case in Warren, Ohio, where a woman was charged with abuse of a corpse after being sent home from the hospital and having a miscarriage. She had a miscarriage in a toilet, flushed a toilet, and then was reported for the treatment of a non-viable fetus. The amendment ensures there is an exception for situations of miscarriages and stillbirths in the home.
Thank you for the explanation. The question is, shall the motion to amend be agreed to? Yes, Representative Williams.
Thank you, Chair. Just informing the committee that myself and my joint sponsor have consented to this amendment and worked across the aisle. I think this is a good amendment to tighten up the language and make sure that women that go through life-changing experiences are not victims of a criminal justice system that is overzealous. So I think this gives the protections, and we tightened up the language from the original amendment to make sure it didn't have unintended consequences. Thank you.
Thank you. Great. Thank you for that. So the question is, shall the motion to amend be agreed to? Hearing no objection, the motion is accepted. I call on Representative Swearingen for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to favorably report House Bill 459 out of committee and recommend its passage.
Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Thomas? Yes. Vice Chair Swearingen? Yes. Yes. Representative Antonio? Yes. Representative Callender? Yes. Representative Mathews? Yes Representative Muhammad Yes Representative Odiosa Yes Representative Walshager Yes Representative Plummer Yes Representative Stewart Yes Representative Timms Yes Representative Williams? Yes. With sufficient votes, the bill is favorably reported. The roll will stay open until noon today in the clerk's office. And I ask LSE to please harmonize the adopted amendment for this bill into a substitute bill. This concludes the fourth and final hearing for House Bill 459. So we're going to go slightly out of order. I'm going to call up House Bill 491 for its fourth hearing. I call on Representative Swearingen for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move to accept substitute Bill 0658-2 for House Bill 491. The sub bill is in order. It can be
found on your iPads. Please, can you explain the sub bill? Thanks, Mr. Chair. This sub bill cleans up expert evaluation qualifications. It streamlines
the process of getting expert evaluations by giving flexibility on filing and obtaining while court hearings may still proceed. Helps to work around potential obstacles, prevent delays, and makes the process more attainable.
Thank you for the explanation. The question is, shall the motion to amend be agreed to. Hearing no objection, the motion is accepted. This concludes the fourth hearing for House Bill 491. I'd now like to call up House Bill 952 for its first hearing. I'd like to invite Representatives Matthews and Fishers for sponsored testimony.
Chair Thomas, Vice Chair Swearengin, Ranking Member Zunenberg, fellow members of the House Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 952, the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I hand it to my joint sponsor to enter the bill. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Religious liberty is one of the most fundamental rights protected by the United States and Ohio constitutions and one of the core principles that led to our celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The freedom to live according to one's religious beliefs and act upon them in a broader society is a right that belongs to every Ohioan and must be protected. This bill establishes a clear standard protecting Ohioans against state and local government entities from substantially burdening either religious worship or exercise. In legal terms, government burden on religious practice must be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. In practice, if there is ever an exception, religious practice must be included in those exceptions. This legislation apprised every branch, department, agency, and official acting under color of Ohio law and provides Ohioans with both affirmative legal claim and defense when their religious freedoms have been infringed. This statute is not new, nor has it been necessarily partisan. The U.S. Congress passed the federal RFRA in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. However, Supreme Court and City of Boren v. Flores limited the law and ruled that the federal RFRA only applies to the actions of the federal government. In response, states took their proper roles under the Tenth Amendment and enacted state-specific RFRAs. Ohio has the opportunity to continue on this path. Approximately 30 states across the geographic and political spectrum already have their own RFRA statutes. neighboring states like Illinois and Indiana have had their own versions of RFRA protections for years. In the last few years states have picked up the pace passing these statutes including many in the Mountain West and Georgia as recently as last year Ohio has been relying on a 2000 Supreme Court Ohio Supreme Court case Humphrey v Lane for some referral-like protections. But court decisions can be argued to only apply to those specific facts. They may not be cited upon by subsequent justices. They could be reversed or they could be narrowed. Providing a well-defined statute allows us to have a more durable, clearer, and easily understood framework for our religious practice. A clear statute like this one could have avoided the litigation surrounding the church in Bryan, Ohio, which took seriously Christ's charge to take care of the stranger. It took a multi-year lawsuit for Dad's Place to win, as the city allowed variances for other purposes, but would not allow this church to house the homeless and be open 24-7 in service. If Ohio had had a referendum place, this pastor would have been able to serve without the harassment of local government. Like George's, our Ohio RFRA is only against the government, with no effect on businesses or other freedoms of association. As in all RFRAs, the protection is for all faith traditions, exercising their sincerely held beliefs to better themselves and their communities. House Bill 952, the Ohio Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is about limiting government overreach and protecting one of our most cherished constitutional freedoms. It mirrors a long-standing federal standard, follows the example of 30 other states with well-vetted jurisprudence, and ensures that Ohioans receive robust protections for the free exercise of religion regardless of their faith tradition. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on this busy day and on this very important legislation. We ask for favorable consideration and be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for the sponsors? Representative Pickle-Antonio with a question.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for being here today. I, too, am a fierce defender of First Amendment rights. Really what I'm wondering only is you kind of explained, I guess, why you feel the need to codify this in Ohio law. I guess I'm wondering why not the fullness of both sides of both clauses in the First Amendment related to religious expression. So religious freedom on the one hand, and then also the establishment clause. Why not both sides of that equation and only the religious freedom side?
Through the chair to the representative, to draft a piece of legislation that would say, The freedom of to have a statute against the establishment would be every single bill that we pass that does not establish a religion. This is a restriction on the government actions. And so you have that freedom of expression and it applies for everything. We just saw another case up in University Heights where Mr. Daniel Grand had wanted to have a Jewish religious practice, Jewish religious meeting at his house and tried to get the proper permit. Found out the permit didn't even really apply to him because he wasn't trying to do a temporary synagogue. It was his residential property. And after that, the city has hounded him to now through litigation. And this is a protection against the government to have something to say Ohio will not establish any type of faith. This law does do that because it does not establish any certain faith here whatsoever.
Follow-up?
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that explanation. Can you, I guess, give an example of, so we can already sue government entities. I mean, this is, as we talked about, this is already the law. I guess can you give an example of if the bill goes into effect today is there a scenario that you think would be not so certain under interpretation with current case law that you think would be made more clear if this law goes into effect? And maybe it's the example that you just gave.
Yeah, through the chair to the representative, part of it is having, like that example would have been, that I just gave, or the one before with Brian's dad's place, or a similar one in a neighboring district that I've had where there's been incredibly zoning fights against a Hindu temple, that when you have one Supreme Court decision that is coming up on 26 years old, that is very specific to those cases, and may somewhat, because the facts of those cases are somewhat related to the justice system, where there are stronger protections because of Arlupa, having something in statute would make it easier for village solicitors and city attorneys to know this is the black-letter law that they must abide by to counsel their city councils, their village councils, their township trustees, their county commissioners, to be very cognizant of passing these either zoning or other types of regulations or laws that would infringe upon these rights.
Good. Representative Williams with a question.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you guys for coming to testify. In reading this, does this get rid of qualified immunity for law enforcement officers? if the person believes that they violated their religious beliefs?
Through the chair to the representative, it does not get rid of qualified immunity for law enforcement. What it does is it removes state immunity from suits, but it does not get rid of quality.
Follow up? Yes. So in Section 2, line 14 through 17, government entity includes a state, any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official or other person acting under color of law of this state or any political subdivision of the state.
Yes.
Then when you go to the cause of action, it gives a person the ability to bring action against the government entity. So an officer is under the definition of government entity in this bill. Therefore, an officer that's accused of violating someone's religious beliefs can be personally sued under this bill and frankly counter any county of competent jurisdiction. We might want to look at that portion a little bit. So I understand if we go after the department.
Right.
But this goes after the individual officer. and it removes their immunity. It specifically says it removes their immunity.
Through the chair to the representative, if we need to tighten that language, the intent is so that you cannot waive, say we can't sue the state for these cases. No problem.
Any other questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you.
This concludes the first hearing for House Bill 952. Now I have to call House Bill 686 for its third hearing. Please note there are two written-only testimonies on your iPads, and this will conclude the third hearing for House Bill 686. At this time, the committee is going to recess, and we will let people know at what time we're going to reconvene later today. So we're going to recess, and I hope you guys have a good day. Thanks.