California Bill Threatens to Revive Decades-Old Lawsuits Against Faith-Based Counselors

Faith Facts

• California’s SB 934 would allow lawsuits against Christian counselors to be revived up to 17 years after the statute of limitations has expired
• The bill retroactively punishes conduct that was legal at the time it occurred, raising serious constitutional concerns about ex post facto laws
• This legislation sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to target other faith-based practices and religious freedom protections

A new California bill is raising alarm bells among religious freedom advocates and constitutional scholars. SB 934, promoted under the banner of protecting survivors of so-called “conversion therapy,” contains provisions that could fundamentally undermine legal protections that have existed for centuries.

The legislation would grant the state unprecedented power to reach back nearly two decades to revive expired legal claims. More troubling still, it would punish counselors and ministries for conduct that was entirely legal when it occurred.

At its core, this bill represents more than a policy dispute over counseling methods. It establishes a framework where the government can retroactively redefine legal conduct as punishable — a concept that violates basic American principles of due process and fair notice.

Christian counselors who provided biblically-based guidance years ago, operating within the law and their sincerely held religious convictions, could now face lawsuits for actions the state has decided to retroactively criminalize. This creates an impossible situation where citizens cannot know whether their lawful conduct today will be deemed illegal tomorrow.

The statute of limitations exists for good reason. It protects defendants from stale claims where evidence has disappeared, memories have faded, and witnesses may no longer be available. These protections apply to everyone, regardless of the popularity of their views.

By allowing plaintiffs to revive claims that expired years ago, SB 934 strips away these fundamental fairness protections. It opens the door for similar retroactive targeting of other unpopular groups or practices — a power that could easily be turned against any faith community.

Religious organizations have long provided counseling consistent with their theological beliefs. Whether helping individuals align their lives with biblical teaching on sexuality, marriage, or other matters of conscience, these ministries operate from a place of compassion and conviction.

While proponents frame this as protection for vulnerable individuals, the bill’s actual mechanism threatens to weaponize the legal system against religious practice. It sends a chilling message: hold traditional Christian beliefs at your own risk, because the rules can change retroactively.

The precedent extends far beyond this specific issue. If California can revive expired lawsuits and retroactively punish previously legal religious counseling, what prevents future legislatures from doing the same with other faith practices? Homeschooling curricula? Pastoral counseling on marriage? Religious education on gender?

Constitutional safeguards exist precisely to prevent this kind of overreach. The prohibition on ex post facto laws — laws that retroactively criminalize conduct — is foundational to American jurisprudence. It reflects the understanding that citizens must be able to know what the law is and conform their conduct accordingly.

Americans of all backgrounds should be concerned when any group faces retroactive punishment for conduct that was legal when performed. Today it may target one unpopular practice; tomorrow it could reach any belief or behavior the government decides to redefine.

Religious freedom means little if it can be revoked retroactively. The freedom to live according to one’s faith requires the assurance that lawful religious practice today won’t become the basis for punishment years from now when political winds shift.

California lawmakers should recognize that this bill, whatever its stated intentions, establishes a dangerous precedent that threatens foundational legal protections. The power to reach back in time to punish previously legal conduct is a power no government should possess in a free society.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.