In a landmark move, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) successfully influenced the passage of new legislation, ensuring that authorities do not disproportionately target religious institutions during states of emergency. North Carolina recently enacted the Protecting Religious Liberty in States of Emergency (PRAISE) Act, despite opposition from Governor Roy Cooper.

According to World Net Daily, the PRAISE Act was designed to prevent discriminatory restrictions on religious organizations compared to secular ones during emergencies.

The ACLJ reported observing during the COVID-19 pandemic that religious organizations faced stricter quarantining rules than their secular counterparts. This disparity spurred the creation of the PRAISE Act with the intent to provide a balanced approach to emergency measures, safeguarding the operations of religious institutions.

The ACLJ Action, closely affiliated with the ACLJ, took a proactive role in drafting the legislation. They collaborated with lawmakers nationwide to ensure that similar religious protections could be implemented across various states.

Legislative Victory Achieved in North Carolina

In North Carolina, the journey of the PRAISE Act was met with significant resistance. Initially, Governor Roy Cooper vetoed the legislation, expressing concerns not about the religious protections but about a campaign finance reform measure included in the bill. This objection highlighted the often complex nature of legislative packages.

The North Carolina legislature, however, stood firm in its commitment to safeguard religious freedoms during emergencies. Both the state House and Senate overrode the Governor's veto, with final votes of 70-46 and 30-14, respectively. This override was a decisive action reflecting the legislature's priorities.

With the veto override, the PRAISE Act became law, marking a key victory for religious liberty advocates. The law specifically prohibits any emergency orders or regulations that impose greater limitations on religious institutions than on comparable private or public entities.

Addressing Disparities Faced During the Pandemic

North Carolina enacted the PRAISE Act largely in response to the discriminatory treatment witnessed during the pandemic. The law aims to prevent future disparities by ensuring that authorities treat religious institutions on par with secular businesses under emergency regulations.

The issue led to several legal challenges, where courts frequently sided with churches, affirming that authorities had unjustly curtailed their rights. Some of these cases concluded with settlements favoring the affected religious entities, highlighting the seriousness of the grievances.

These legal battles underscored the need for a statutory remedy, leading to the drafting and eventual passage of the PRAISE Act. The supporters of the law argue that it offers a constitutionally sound method to shield religious liberty from undue governmental overreach.

Ensuring Access to Worship

According to a statement released by the ACLJ Action, the goal of the PRAISE Act is to secure the right to worship from potential misuse of power by unelected officials during crises. This has been a core issue for the organization, motivating their extensive legislative efforts.

Gov. Cooper’s reluctance to approve the bill stemmed from issues unrelated to its religious aspects, specifically a clause about campaign finance reform. This point of contention was significant enough for him to attempt to block the bill’s passage, underscoring the complexities involved in legislative negotiations.

However, the legislature ensured that any future state of emergency would uphold citizens' rights to worship without undue interference by successfully overriding the veto. Lawmakers viewed this legal protection as essential for maintaining the balance between public health and religious freedoms.

As the PRAISE Act takes effect, supporters continue to monitor its implementation and impact. The ACLJ and its sister organization, ACLJ Action, remain engaged with state legislators to replicate this protective measure in additional states, securing 28 instances of adoption thus far.