This bill inserts a new Section 1990A into federal law to require that religious organizations be considered and eligible for Federal financial assistance for social‑service programs on the same basis as private nonreligious organizations. It prohibits selection or oversight practices that disfavor religious groups, preserves a suite of statutory religious exemptions, limits audits to segregated federal accounts, and creates a private right of action with attorney’s fees.
For grantmakers, pass‑through entities, and state and local administrators, the measure changes procurement and oversight posture: it narrows conditions that programs can impose on religious providers, demands alternative service referrals when beneficiaries object, and preempts conflicting state or prior federal rules unless those laws explicitly reference this new section. The practical effect will be expanded access for faith‑based providers to federal funds and new compliance questions for governments and nonprofits administering federal social services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates that religious organizations be eligible to apply for and receive Federal financial assistance for social‑service programs on terms equal to private nonreligious organizations, and it bars selection criteria or oversight practices that disfavor organizations because of religion. It also preserves existing statutory religious exemptions, restricts audit access to segregated federal accounts, and authorizes courts to award relief and attorney’s fees for violations.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies, state and local governments, and pass‑through entities that award or administer federally funded social services; faith‑based nonprofits that compete for grants and contracts; nonreligious service providers that share procurement pools; and covered beneficiaries who receive services under these programs.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts legal and administrative baseline for federally funded social services by elevating protections for religious character and autonomy and by preempting contrary state or federal practices. Compliance officers and procurement teams will need to rework application materials, oversight policies, and audit procedures to avoid claims under the statute.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a unified statutory rule that religiously affiliated nonprofits must be treated like secular private organizations when applying for or receiving federal financial assistance to provide social services. That applies not only to direct federal grants and contracts but also to funds passed through states, localities, and intermediary organizations.
The statute requires neutral consideration in selection and forbids imposing conditions, assurances, or notices on religious organizations that are not required of nonreligious providers.
It protects the internal character and operations of religious providers: organizations can keep religious names, displays, mission statements, and hiring criteria tied to their beliefs. At the same time the bill says recipients cannot discriminate against beneficiaries on the basis of religion, but it also recognizes that programs need not be altered to accommodate a beneficiary’s request to change program components; instead, the government must offer a reasonably accessible alternative of substantially similar value within a reasonable time.On oversight, the statute gives religious organizations the option to segregate federal funds into separate accounts, and limits federal audits to those segregated federal accounts (unless the provider voluntarily commingles nonmatching private funds, in which case commingled funds can be audited).
The bill preserves preexisting statutory religious exemptions (for example, under Title VII, Title IX, ADA, RFRA) so that accepting federal funds does not waive those protections. Finally, the law creates a private right of action for religious organizations, allows courts to award relief and fees, and contains a broad preemption clause that displaces conflicting state or prior federal rules unless future laws explicitly reference this section.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a standalone federal provision directing grantmakers to consider religious organizations 'on the same basis' as private nonreligious organizations for federally funded social‑service programs.
It bars documents or policies tied to federal assistance from requiring religious organizations to provide assurances or notices that secular providers need not provide.
The statute explicitly preserves religious exemptions found in Title VII, Title IX, the ADA, RFRA, RLUIPA, and related laws so receipt of funds does not forfeit those protections.
Religious organizations may segregate federal funds into separate accounts; only those segregated federal (and required matching) accounts are subject to federal audit unless nonmatching private funds are commingled.
The bill creates a private right of action for religious organizations to sue for violations, authorizes attorney’s fees, and preempts state/local laws and prior federal policies that conflict with the new section.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act’s short name as the 'Lifting Local Communities Act.' This is a housekeeping provision that identifies the statute in subsequent drafting and references.
Statement of purposes
Lists the bill’s objectives: expand assistance delivery, prohibit discrimination against religious organizations in federal funding, assure religious autonomy, strengthen social‑service capacity by enabling religious groups to participate, and expand beneficiary choice. Purpose clauses are interpretive tools that courts and agencies often consult when applying ambiguous statutory terms.
Equal consideration requirement
Requires that any entity awarding Federal financial assistance for social services—federal agencies, states, local governments, or pass‑through entities—must consider religious organizations on the same basis as private nonreligious organizations. Practically, procurement staff must remove or justify any selection criteria that treat religious character as a disqualifier.
Selection rules, assurances, and program parity
Creates several constraints: (1) religious organizations are eligible to apply and receive funds on the same terms; (2) selection decisions cannot favor or disfavor organizations based on religion; (3) recipients cannot be required to provide unique assurances or notices because they are religious; (4) restrictions on use of funds must apply equally; and (5) programs cannot disqualify religious providers or bar religious activities at the same time and place as federally funded programming. These mechanics will require revising application forms, standard assurances, and contract templates used across programs.
Protections for religious character and governance
Affirms a religious organization’s right to retain its autonomous identity and internal governance while participating in federally funded programs: religious names, symbols, hiring consistent with religious tenets, and expression are preserved. Grant managers must recognize that these internal governance features are part of protected religious exercise and cannot be used as grounds for disqualification.
Beneficiary nondiscrimination and alternative services
States that organizations receiving federal funds may not discriminate against beneficiaries on religious grounds, but it also clarifies that programs need not modify their components to suit a beneficiary’s preferences. When a beneficiary objects to the provider’s character, the relevant government actor must provide a reasonably accessible alternative of substantially similar value within a reasonable time—creating a concrete operational obligation for agencies to maintain referral pathways.
Preservation of statutory religious exemptions and audit limits
Declares that existing statutory religious exemptions (Title VII, Title IX, ADA, RFRA, RLUIPA, etc.) remain intact and are not waived by participation. It also permits segregation of federal funds into separate accounts and restricts federal audit reach to those segregated federal accounts unless the organization commingles private nonmatching funds with federal matching funds. Finance and compliance teams will need new accounting and auditing rules for mixed‑fund programs.
Enforcement, preemption, and construction
Grants a private right of action to religious organizations and authorizes relief including attorney’s fees; bars state and local laws from imposing requirements inconsistent with the section for federally funded programs; and states that the section supersedes prior federal law unless another statute expressly references this section. The combination of private enforcement and broad preemption raises the stakes for agencies and states administering federal social services.
Definitions
Defines key terms such as 'Federal financial assistance,' 'pass‑through entity,' 'religious exercise,' 'services,' and 'social services program.' The statutory definitions are intentionally broad: 'social services program' includes childcare, job training, meals, housing assistance, counseling, transportation, and other poverty‑related services, which expands the statute’s operational reach across multiple program areas.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Faith‑based nonprofits that provide social services: They gain clearer entitlement to compete for federal grants and contracts and statutory protections for religious names, symbols, and faith‑based hiring practices.
- Beneficiaries who prefer faith‑based services: Individuals seeking services from religious providers will see expanded options because religious organizations can more easily enter federal funding streams.
- Religiously affiliated employers and governing bodies: The bill reinforces the ability to use religious criteria for leadership and staff selection where tied to the organization’s mission, protecting religious hiring practices even when funded.
- Small or new faith‑based entrants: Pass‑through and competitive funding pools become more accessible, lowering barriers for startups that previously feared disqualification because of religious character.
- Donors and volunteers of religious organizations: Clearer legal protection for religious identity reduces the risk that giving or volunteering will trigger compliance problems tied to federal funding.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal, state, and local grant administrators: Agencies must revise solicitations, assurances, contract language, and oversight policies to comply, and they may face increases in administrative and legal costs.
- Pass‑through entities and intermediaries: Organizations that distribute federal funds will need new compliance systems, and may face more litigation exposure if selection or oversight decisions are challenged.
- Nonreligious service providers: Competitors may encounter expanded competition from faith‑based entrants and potential changes in funding allocation dynamics.
- Civil‑rights enforcement offices and program monitors: Agencies responsible for beneficiary protections will need to implement alternative‑service referral systems and adjudicate complaints where religious exercise and nondiscrimination collide.
- State and local governments: The preemption clause may force changes to existing state rules and procurement practices and limit state ability to condition funding, producing fiscal and legal adjustment costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting the religious autonomy of service providers and preserving equal access and nondiscrimination for program beneficiaries: the bill tilts toward provider autonomy and access to funding, but doing so without weakening beneficiary protections or undermining established oversight requires detailed operational rules—and the statute leaves many of those implementation choices to agencies and courts.
The statute packs broad protections for religious character into a single section, but several operational and legal frictions remain. First, the bill preserves beneficiaries’ nondiscrimination rights while simultaneously shielding religious providers from being required to modify program components; delivering both requires concrete, well‑resourced referral systems and prompt alternative offerings—an administrative task the bill mandates but does not fund or define in detail.
Second, the audit limitation depends on crisp accounting practices: where organizations commingle funds, federal audit reach expands. That invites disputes over what counts as 'matching' or 'nonmatching' and whether a donor‑restricted private contribution is subject to oversight.
More fundamentally, the statute’s broad preemption and the command that it supersede prior federal policies (unless later laws expressly reference it) set up likely legal conflicts. Agencies that have previously conditioned federal funds on nondiscrimination or other secular criteria may find their rules challenged; courts will have to reconcile this new statutory baseline with constitutional safeguards and existing statutory obligations (for example, civil‑rights statutes when beneficiaries are protected classes).
The private right of action and fee shifting increases the probability of litigation and will shape how strictly agencies and states treat religious character in procurement and oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.