"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.

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.

This report offers policymakers guidance on how to protect freedom of conscience for all, not merely for a favored few. The report is accompanied by a media guide for journalists suggesting ways to think about and hone questions for policymakers and advocates claiming to protect religious liberty.

LRRP Director Elizabeth Reiner Platt explores the Trump administration’s continued assaults on progressive rights of conscience.

A comprehensive report documenting the many contexts in which people of faith engaged in humanitarian and social justice work have fought for the right to exercise their religion.

LRRP and fellow legal scholars file brief in case in which the Department of Justice rejects religious liberty rights of non-profit that provides safe space to injection drug users.

Nationally recognized law professors with expertise in religious liberty law filed an amicus brief in the appeal of the convictions of four sanctuary activists who were found guilty in the crime of leaving water and food in the desert for migrants.

Prof. Katherine Franke joined an amicus brief in a case challenging rules that exempt employers with religious/moral objections from compliance with the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act. The brief explains that these rules conflict with constitutional religious liberty law by requiring employees to bear the cost of their employer's beliefs.

This report outlines the ways in which a guidance document issued by the Trump-era Attorney General interprets and expands religious liberty laws in a way that elevates the right to religious exemptions over other legal and constitutional rights. The guidance has been used to limit access to reproductive health care and threatens to limit enforcement of various health, employment, and anti-discrimination protections.