According to https://local12.com/news/local/student-religious-liberty-act-sponsor-says-it-protects-rights-critics-say-its-not-needed, Rep. Catherine Ingram argued that a recent bill in Ohio - requiring employees of public schools to respect certain religious freedoms of students - was "redundant and unnecessary" because the rights it purported to grant were already afforded to students by the First Amendment.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is true that the rights described in the state law are indeed all ones that are already granted, clearly, by the constitution. Let's also suppose that both the bill and the current Constitutional case law are clear enough that it's unambiguous that this is the case. Does Ingram's conclusion then follow? Does having a right granted by the Constitution indeed mean that encoding that same right in state law has no legal effect?
Or can the "redundant" encoding of such a right in state law in fact have some effect - perhaps by impacting what entities can be sued for violating the right, or in what sort of court?
