ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 35
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 35/10 (2026)

Findings and purposes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 35/10)
    Sec. 10. Findings and purposes.
    (a) The General Assembly finds the following:
        (1) The free exercise of religion is an inherent,
    
fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.
        (2) Laws "neutral" toward religion, as well as laws
    
intended to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden the exercise of religion.
        (3) Government should not substantially burden the
    
exercise of religion without compelling justification.
        (4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872
    
(1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that government justify burdens on the exercise of religion imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
        (5) In City of Boerne v. P. F. Flores, 65 LW 4612
    
(1997) the Supreme Court held that an Act passed by Congress to address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
        (6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in
    
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests.
    (b) The purposes of this Act are as follows:
        (1) To restore the compelling interest test as set
    
forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling governmental interest will be imposed on all State and local (including home rule unit) laws, ordinances, policies, procedures, practices, and governmental actions in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.
        (2) To provide a claim or defense to persons whose
    
exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.
(Source: P.A. 90-806, eff. 12-2-98.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 867 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 867 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
Rojas v. Martell, 2020 IL App (2d) 190215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “” 775 ILCS 35/10(b) (West 2014). Accordingly, the Religious Freedom Act provides: “Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to…”
People v. Watson, 965 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “The defendant's rights were violated when a conflict of interest arose when defendant [ sic ] desire to testify on his own behalf because of religious beliefs interfered with [trial counsel's] desire for defendant not to testify. [Trial counsel] advised defendant he did not have…”
Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Evanston, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 250 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003). “” 775 ILCS 35/10 (West 2002). One of the few Illinois cases to apply the statute has also noted this intent.”
Diggs v. Snyder, 775 N.E.2d 40 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “775 ILCS 35/ 10(a)(6), (b)(1) (West 2000).”
People v. Watson, 2012 IL App (2d) 91328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “And under 775 ILCS 35/10(1) and Article 1 section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.”
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
Illinois Baptist State Ass'n v. Dep't of Ins., 2025 IL App (4th) 241282-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(4) (West 2020). However, the General Assembly recognized neutral laws may still burden the exercise of religion.”
Diggs v. Snyder (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “775 ILCS 35/10(a)(6), (b)(1) (West 2000).”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(1) — 2 cases
People v. Watson, 965 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “The defendant's rights were violated when a conflict of interest arose when defendant [ sic ] desire to testify on his own behalf because of religious beliefs interfered with [trial counsel's] desire for defendant not to testify. [Trial counsel] advised defendant he did not have…”
People v. Watson, 2012 IL App (2d) 91328 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “And under 775 ILCS 35/10(1) and Article 1 section 3 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) — 2 cases
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 867 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(4) — 1 case
Illinois Baptist State Ass'n v. Dep't of Ins., 2025 IL App (4th) 241282-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “” 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(4) (West 2020). However, the General Assembly recognized neutral laws may still burden the exercise of religion.”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(6) — 2 cases
Diggs v. Snyder, 775 N.E.2d 40 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “775 ILCS 35/ 10(a)(6), (b)(1) (West 2000).”
Diggs v. Snyder (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “775 ILCS 35/10(a)(6), (b)(1) (West 2000).”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(b) — 1 case
Rojas v. Martell, 2020 IL App (2d) 190215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 35/10(b) (West 2014). Accordingly, the Religious Freedom Act provides: “Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to…”
— 775 ILCS 35/10(b)(2) — 2 cases
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 867 N.E.2d 1164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “" 775 ILCS 35/10(a)(1) (West 2004). One of the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "[t]o provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by government.”
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.