PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 115-249.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Sep 28, 2018
Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2018
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the federal criminal code to modify an existing prohibition on intentionally obstructing, by force or threat of force, a person in the free exercise of religious beliefs.
The bill specifies that, with respect to the prohibition, a threat of force includes a threat of force against religious real property.
Additionally, it establishes a criminal penalty—a fine, a prison term of up to three years, or both—for a violation that results in damage or destruction to religious real property in an amount that exceeds $5,000.
Finally, the bill broadens the definition of "religious real property" to include real property owned or leased by a nonprofit, religiously affiliated organization.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-249.
Became Public Law No: 115-249.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H7925)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H7925)
Mrs. Handel asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H7925)
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6032-6033; text of measure as passed: CR S6033)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6032-6033; text of measure as passed: CR S6033)
By Senator Grassley from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 115-325.
By Senator Grassley from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 115-325.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 394.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.994 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.994 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.994 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.994 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.