§ 110.004.Defense

One sentence making the chapter a shield as well as a sword.

A person whose free exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of the chapter may assert that violation as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person.

The defensive use is often the more valuable one. A person prosecuted, fined or subjected to enforcement for religiously motivated conduct can raise the chapter where they stand, rather than bringing a separate action.

Naming administrative proceedings is significant. Licensing hearings, zoning decisions and disciplinary proceedings are where much of this conflict arises, and the defence is available there.

"Without regard to whether the proceeding is brought in the name of the state or by any other person" is broad, and it means the defence is not confined to government enforcement.

The defensive route also avoids the chapter’s procedural hurdles. The remedies section requires 60 days’ notice before an action and imposes a one-year limitations period; a defence in a proceeding someone else began is neither.

That is a real practical advantage. A person who has missed the limitations period, or who never gave notice, retains the defence.

The section covers a violation of either operative provision — the substantial burden prohibition and the prohibition on closure orders.

What the defence produces is the failure of the proceeding against the person, not the damages and relief the remedies section provides — which requires a claim.