In January of 2025, President Donald Trump withdrew a policy known as the “sensitive locations memo,” which had previously limited immigration enforcement in locations such as houses of worship and religious ceremonies. Religious groups challenged the withdrawal of these protections as, among other things, a violation of the groups’ religious liberty rights. This document provides updates on initial decisions in these lawsuits.

This FAQ explains whether and how RFRA might apply to protect people and communities of faith from immigration-related surveillance and enforcement.

“As progressive faith communities garner more public attention—and legal wins—my hope is that they lead us on a path toward a more pluralistic and balanced approach to religious liberty.”

– LRRP Director Liz Reiner Platt, Gender Policy Report.

This free, virtual curriculum explores the history of religious liberty in the U.S. and contemporary issues in religion law, focusing on how religious freedom has protected—or failed to protect—Black Americans.

"As abortion rights defenders in Iowa and elsewhere navigate an increasingly restrictive legislative environment, RFRA challenges are only likely to increase—and they have the critical benefit of elevating the abortion stories of religious people."

–LRRP's Dr. Christine Ryan

This report distills the factors courts consider, and do not consider, when assessing whether beliefs and practices are religious.

LRRP filed an amicus brief in an Indiana Supreme Court case considering whether to uphold a lower court ruling that created religious exemptions from the state’s near-total abortion ban.

This article responds to critiques of lawsuits seeking a religious liberty right to access abortion, arguing that granting expansive religious liberty claims made by religious conservatives is both constitutionally problematic and normatively unfair.

LRRP’s Dr. Christine Ryan details how the conservative win in the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision was used to protect pro-abortion religious beliefs in Indiana.

This legal explainer tackles the three main myths surrounding the legal questions in lawsuits arguing for a religious right to abortion.

This resource was originally created to accompany a post-screening talk on Under G-d, a documentary short film about the national Jewish response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Can a fast food chain refuse to serve LGBTQ customers? Can a photographer refuse to take pictures at a Jewish wedding? Haven’t businesses always been able to turn away certain customers or refuse to provide goods and services they oppose? This Q&A addresses these questions and others, explaining the latest legal developments at the intersection of anti-discrimination law and the First Amendment.

LRRP Director Liz Reiner Platt explains why religious liberty protects the right to refuse participation in a ritual as much as the right to engage in one.

LRRP and partners filed an amicus brief arguing that Free Exercise Rights would be burdened by Indiana's Fetal Tissue Disposition Law.

Liz Reiner Platt details our nation’s current trajectory, in which conservative Christians are able to shut down government programs they oppose, while religious minorities are left unprotected from threats to their religious practice.

This memo provides a brief overview of religious liberty laws, details the history of legal claims using a religious liberty right to abortion, and explores how such claims might be made today.

This report presents new research that hospitals across the region strictly regulate the provision of abortion, leading to delays and denials of care for patients facing severe pregnancy complications.

This legal explainer explores how religious exemption measures threaten more than just LGBTQ and reproductive health, and can limit or significantly undermine workers’ rights, public health, environmental welfare, emergency response, religious pluralism, and other crucial interests.

This report shows that the Supreme Court’s COVID-era opinions have created a hierarchy of constitutional rights, with religious rights at the top.

Professor Katherine Franke, Founding Director of the Law, Rights & Religion Project, filed an amicus brief in support of Ahmad Awad, Sofia Dadap, Sapphira Lurie, and Julie Norris in their lawsuit against Fordham University.