# Investigation: H.R. 9310 Sec. 543 — Title V, Section 543 HR 9310 — 119-hr-9310-rh · 119th Congress Evidence boundary 2026-07-28 · Bench 5 of the record Terrain: blocked · 90% confidence Part of [FY27 appropriations riders: what survives?](https://prism.vote/record/fy27-rider-survival.md) ## Screening · Staff Read Terrain: blocked · 85% confidence This appropriations rider prohibits federal funds from being used to discriminate against persons who act on sincere religious or moral beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman, covering tax treatment, benefits, grants, and other federal programs. The terrain is blocked: fifteen near-identical provisions across several Congresses have all died in Congress or remain pending, and none was enacted. This design has repeatedly failed to become law despite repeated introductions. ## Direction · Brief Starting with this text's history. It is a massive recurring line, 48 bills from 2009 to 2025 running back to H.R. 3288 (111th), plus a second line in the State-Foreign Operations bills. Reading whether that line is the same marriage-protection rider appearing in annual appropriations, and whether any of its appearances was enacted. ## Observation · Brief The enrolled Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (PL 118-42) does not contain this provision. The House Homeland Security appropriations bill for FY2024 included it at Title IV, sec. 416, but when that bill was folded into the consolidated act, the marriage protection rider was dropped. The enacted text at that location is a different provision, an unrelated appropriations restriction, confirming that no near-match to this rider survived into law. This is the clearest single finding in the investigation: the rider has been stripped at conference every cycle it has been tried in the appropriations context. ### Evidence - **Provision comparison** — PL 118-42 (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2024), Div. E § 416 — Enrolled text at this location vs. the House rider > The enacted text at this location is a different provision, an unrelated appropriations restriction rather than the marriage protection rider. The First Amendment Defense Act-style rider carried in the pre-conference House Homeland bill at title IV, sec. 416 is absent from the enacted text. ## Observation · Brief The two statutes cited in the rider's "notwithstanding" clause have both been substantively amended by the Respect for Marriage Act (Pub. L. 117-228, Dec. 13, 2022). The original DOMA text of 1 U.S.C. § 7 ("the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife") was replaced entirely; the current text recognizes any marriage valid in the state where it was entered. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1738C now requires states to honor valid same-sex marriages rather than permitting them to refuse recognition. The rider's "notwithstanding" citations thus reference statutes that now protect marriage equality rather than restrict it. The drafting is frozen in the DOMA era, creating a legal orphan problem that Senate appropriators and conferees would cite as grounds to drop the provision. ### Evidence - **Legal reference** — 1 U.S.C. § 7, as amended by Pub. L. 117-228 § 5 (Dec. 13, 2022) — Respect for Marriage Act amendment to DOMA definition > Prior to amendment, text read: ‘the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.’ The 2022 amendment replaced this entirely with recognition of any marriage valid in the state where entered into. ## Insight · Brief Three reinforcing signals converge on this provision. First, the history: the text is boilerplate that appears verbatim across every Republican House appropriations bill, a recurring placeholder House Republicans insert in every draft knowing it will be contested in conference. Second, the conference outcome signal is unambiguous: it was dropped from the enacted FY2024 omnibus despite appearing in the House pre-conference text. Third, the legal framing has deteriorated since the Respect for Marriage Act (2022) rewrote both statutes the rider cites; the "notwithstanding" clause now refers to provisions that protect same-sex marriage rather than restricting it. This turns a standard Senate objection (the policy is controversial) into a compound objection: the policy is controversial and the drafting is legally incoherent given post-2022 law. A four-corners negotiation with any Senate Democratic involvement drops this on first pass. ## Observation · Brief Two further points reinforce the read. First, an established legislative principle: appropriations riders cannot override substantive statutory provisions in other titles of the U.S. Code. Even with a "notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause, the rider cannot legally displace 1 U.S.C. § 7 or 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, statutes in separate titles that Congress affirmatively amended in 2022 to protect same-sex marriage. That limitation is well understood on the Senate side and provides a clean technical rationale for dropping the provision in conference, beyond the political objection. Second, the floor record from the Respect for Marriage Act: Senator Lummis raised the Bob Jones tax-exempt status concern on the floor in November 2022, and the Senate addressed it specifically through the Act's religious liberty provisions. That debate was the legislative moment where the Senate set its baseline for how far religious liberty protections in the marriage context would extend. This rider asks for more than that settled baseline. ### Evidence - **Floor debate** — CREC-2022-11-29-pt1-PgS6847 — Sen. Sinema on RMA religious liberty provisions — Sen. Sinema (D-AZ) — 2022-11-29 > Section 2 of this bill states the Federal Government recognizes religious liberty as an integral component of our national policy regarding marriage. Section 2 was explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable to this bill. - **Legal reference** — 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7 — Existing federal prohibition on discrimination against religious/moral objectors > Existing federal law already prohibits discrimination against applicants in federal grant programs who refuse to participate on religious or moral grounds, a partial existing protection that Senate conferees can point to as covering some of the ground this rider claims to address. ## Observation · Brief The statutory picture sharpens further. Beyond the orphaned "notwithstanding" citations, there is an additional irony: 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7 and 42 U.S.C. § 9849 already prohibit the federal government from discriminating against applicants in grant programs who refuse to participate on religious or moral grounds. The rider's stated protective purpose, shielding people who act on sincere beliefs from federal retaliation, is partially achieved by existing statute in the grant context. Senate conferees can deploy this as a third rationale for dropping the provision: the gap it purports to close is already partially addressed by statute, the remainder goes well beyond anything Congress has enacted, and the drafting invokes statutes that no longer say what the rider's authors intended. Three independent grounds for a conference drop, none requiring a value judgment on the underlying policy. ### Evidence - **Legal reference** — 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7; 42 U.S.C. § 9849 — Existing federal prohibitions on discrimination against religious/moral objectors in grant programs > Existing federal law already prohibits discrimination against applicants in federal financial assistance programs who refuse to participate on religious or moral grounds, partially addressing the same concern this rider invokes, providing Senate conferees a 'redundant and over-broad' rationale for dropping the provision without taking a position on the underlying policy debate. ## Synthesis · Brief Blocked as written. The provision is verbatim boilerplate carried across the FY24, FY25, and FY27 Republican appropriations vehicles; every major House-reported appropriations bill in the current and prior cycle carries it. It is dropped in every conference. The FY2024 consolidated appropriations act (PL 118-42, March 2024) confirms the pattern: the enrolled text does not contain this rider despite its presence in the pre-conference House Homeland bill, and a different provision occupies that location in the enacted text. ### Viable paths 1. **Narrow to tax-exemption protection only, mirroring Respect for Marriage Act § 6 scope** - Mechanism: Limit the prohibition to federal actions that would alter tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. § 501(a) for organizations holding sincere religious beliefs about marriage, tracking the Bob Jones concern the Respect for Marriage Act specifically addressed rather than extending to all federal benefits, grants, contracts, and accreditations - Evidence: The Respect for Marriage Act floor debate (Nov. 2022) shows the tax-exempt status concern was the specific load-bearing objection. Sen. Sinema confirmed § 2 of the Act was 'explicitly included to ensure that the provisions of the Bob Jones case relating to the tax-exempt status of organizations are not applicable.' A rider limited to that scope could argue it protects against administrative overreach beyond the Act's express text. - Tradeoff: Even a narrowed version would face Senate resistance as duplicative of existing Respect for Marriage Act protections. House conservatives would likely reject it as insufficient: the political value of this provision to Republican appropriators lies precisely in its breadth. A narrowed version satisfies neither side. - Example sections: 119-hr-9260:V.sec-533, 119-hr-8495:VI.sec-639 Terrain: blocked · 90% confidence Path forward: No realistic path to enactment as written. The Senate's 60-vote cloture threshold requires at least 7 Democratic votes for any appropriations bill, and this provision is a categorical Democratic objection. Collins, Murkowski, and other Senate Republicans who voted for the Respect for Marriage Act have the political rationale (the Act settled the religious liberty compromise) to resist reopening it. In a four-corners endgame with no Senate markup and no Senate-passed text, this provision is among the first category of House social-policy riders to be dropped in any bipartisan negotiation. Senate conferees have three non-ideological grounds to cite: drafting incoherence (orphaned citations), statutory redundancy (existing law already covers some of this ground), and established conference practice (dropped every prior cycle). --- Canonical: https://prism.vote/investigations/85fa2b36-dc00-4e17-b740-7636e0e54f8e