Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571b (2026)

Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person's exercise of religion

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) The state or any political subdivision of the state may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of the provisions of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the state or any political subdivision of the state.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision of the state to burden any religious belief.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect, interpret or in any way address that portion of article seventh of the Constitution of the state that prohibits any law giving a preference to any religious society or denomination in the state. The granting of government funding, benefits or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Constitution of the state, shall not constitute a violation of this section. As used in this subsection, the term “granting” does not include the denial of government funding, benefits or exemptions.

(f) For the purposes of this section, “state or any political subdivision of the state” includes any agency, board, commission, department, officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision of the state, and “demonstrates” means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.

(P.A. 93-252.)

Religious society was owner of property that was subject to zoning appeal and therefore individual member of society lacked standing under section because member's claim was derivative of society's claim; religious society has standing to bring action under section in order to preserve its rights under Art. I, Sec. 3 of Connecticut Constitution; the terms “burden” and “exercise of religion” are not plain and unambiguous in this land use case, and do not provide broader protection than under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and the court did not believe that legislature intended that land use decision regarding proposed construction of a place of worship would raise religious exercise issues and thus be subject to strict scrutiny under statute. 285 C. 381. Subsec. (d) does not purport to confer on religious institutions immunity from employment discrimination actions but, rather, operates as rule of construction for whole section, as further evidenced by dissimilarity between its language and language of statutes that do confer immunity. 329 C. 684.

Plaintiff could not prevail on claim that, pursuant to Subsec. (b), antidiscrimination statutes should be enforced against religious institution upon showing of compelling state interest; although Subsecs. (a) and (b) authorize state to burden “exercise” of a person's religion upon showing of compelling state interest, Subsec. (d) expressly precludes state from burdening “any religious belief”, and because internal governance of religious institution, including employment of ministers and clergy, is a protected religious belief of the institution, commission correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. 98 CA 646.

Plaintiff's claim re injuries she suffered while voluntarily participating in church healing ritual service are based on religious exercise and not religious belief, and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny under Subsecs. (a) and (b); plaintiff cannot prevail under “public safety exception” of Art. I, Sec. 3 of Connecticut Constitution. 52 CS 218; judgment affirmed, see 134 CA 459.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Cambodian Buddhist Soc'y of Connecticut, Inc. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 941 A.2d 868 (Conn. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cambodian Buddhist Soc'y of Connecticut, Inc. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 941 A.2d 868 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 46× “The plaintiffs appealed from the commission’s decision to the trial court, claiming that the reasons for the denial were not supported by the record and that the denial violated General Statutes § 52-571b 1 and the federal Religious Land Use and Insti *385 tutionalized Persons…”

Trinity Christian Sch. v. Comm'n on Human Rights, 189 A.3d 79 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 31× “The plaintiff appealed from that decision to the Superior Court, claiming that court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's interlocutory appeal because General Statutes § 52-571b (d), 2 which bars the state from burdening any religious **687 belief, immunizes religious…”

Rweyemamu v. Comm'n on Human Rights, 911 A.2d 319 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 24× “In asking us to follow the Second Circuit, the plaintiff asks us to apply the reasoning of Hankins to a Connecticut statute, General Statutes § 52-571b. 7 The plaintiff claims that this statute has the same effect as the Religious Freedom Reformation Act and that we should find…”

Combs v. Homer-Ctr. Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “§§ 1-32-10 to 1-32-60; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann.”

Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Edge Fitness, LLC, 342 Conn. 25 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Thus, we do not consider the implications that § 46a-64 may have in relation to constitutional provisions and statutory safeguards such as the Connecticut Act Concerning Religious Freedom.”

Kubala v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 41 A.3d 351 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 22× “int should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the defendants’ conduct in the performance of the healing prayer service where the plaintiff was injured is protected by the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States…”

Murphy v. Zoning Comm'n of Town of New Milford, 223 F. Supp. 2d 377 (D. Conn. 2002). · cites it 5× “93-252), which has been codified at Connecticut General Statutes § 52-571b. It is unclear why plaintiffs used that particular method of citation, but it is clear that the Eleventh Cause of Action and Thirteenth Cause of Action, to the extent they are different, each allege…”

Murphy v. Zoning Comm'n of the Town of New Milford, 289 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Conn. 2003). · cites it 2× “That statute provides, in its entirety: § 52-571b. Action or defense authorized when state or political subdivision burdens a person’s exercise of religion (a) The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of…”

Spillane v. Lamont, 350 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 42× “8, § 1; and violates their rights under General Statutes § 52-571b. The trial court denied the defendants’ motions to dis- miss the complaint on the ground that they were immune from suit, concluding that two recognized exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity—a…”

Quental v. Connecticut Comm'n on the Deaf & Hearing Impaired, 122 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 7× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-571b Quental and the defendants also move for summary judgment as to Quental’s state statutory claim pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 52-571b.”

Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm'n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 2000cc, 2 and the Connecticut Act Concerning Religious Freedom (CACRF), Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-571b — a state analogue to RLUIPA.”

Boyd v. Arnone, 48 F. Supp. 3d 210 (D. Conn. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 1983 , the deprivation of religion claims under RLUIPA, and the state law claims under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-571b and Article First, §§ 3, 14, 20 of the Connecticut Constitution should proceed against defendants Arnone, Bruno, Peter Murphy, Ri-naldi, Frey, DeGennaro, Strom,…”

Show all 23 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571b(b) — 1 case

Omar Islamic Ctr., Inc v. Meriden (D. Conn. 2022).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.