Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1

Balancing government authority and religious freedom

In 1993, Congress passed RFRA with overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses. RFRA aimed to provide robust religious freedom protections for all people while balancing the important interests of the federal government As President Bill Clinton said when he signed it into law, “What [RFRA] basically says it that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.”

Since its passing, 23 states, including Indiana, have adopted their own versions of RFRA that resemble the federal law. For a RFRA claim to be successful in Indiana, a person must show that they have a sincere religious belief, and that the government has or will soon violate that belief. If these conditions are met, the responsibility is on the government to show that its restriction furthers an important government interest in the least restrictive way possible. 

RFRA weaponized to combat Indiana abortion law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs returned abortion to the states, opening up a vigorous debate with religious voices on both sides. Prior to Dobbs, even though many states restricted abortion after viability, no court had used RFRA to grant a right to abortion. Now, in Indiana, a group is seeking to use Indiana’s RFRA to short-circuit the debate. Members of the class action have asserted a religious belief that they should have the right to abort their unborn children at any stage of pregnancy. However, the plaintiffs admittedly do not share the same religious beliefs, nor do they explain exactly how each woman’s religious exercise is said to be burdened. They are not claiming the right to have an abortion to save their own lives or prevent serious harm to their health, which is already covered by Indiana’s law.

Lawsuit against Indiana flunks the RFRA test 

Becket is representing the Indiana Catholic Conference, which advocates in favor of both life and religious freedom and believes they are complementary, not conflicting, rights.

In friend-of-the-court briefs at the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court, Becket has explained how this RFRA case fails at every step. Restrictions on abortion are unusual, perhaps unique. In most cases, the government can use a less restrictive alternative to accomplish its goal, while still accommodating the religious objection. Under Indiana law, however, abortion is the direct taking of an individual, innocent life. There is no alternative method to protect that life. Life is not a good that can be obtained from a different purveyor, a security risk that might be avoided through other measures, or a health risk that can be mitigated. Prohibiting abortion is the least restrictive way—indeed, the only way—of furthering Indiana’s compelling interest in protecting a particular life at its earliest, most delicate stage.

Federal and state RFRAs have done tremendous good to help religious believers of all faiths. But this lawsuit flunks the RFRA test and should lose in court. There is also no legal history of a religious right to have an abortion.

Lower courts temporarily blocked enforcement of Indiana’s abortion law against the plaintiffs and in March 2026, a trial court permanently barred the state from enforcing the law against them. The state then appealed that decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Indiana Catholic Conference warns that if RFRA is misunderstood in the case, protections for life and religious liberty will suffer.   

Importance to Religious Liberty:

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act: Passed by a bipartisan coalition in 1993, this legislation protects religious groups by requiring the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means possible when its actions would pose a substantial burden on religious exercise.