First Amendment Commons^™

“Illegal” Migration Is Speech, Daniel I. Morales

Indiana Law Journal

Noncitizens must comply with immigration laws just because citizens say so. The citizenry takes for granted its monopoly on immigration control, but the legitimacy of this arrangement has been called into question by cutting-edge political theorists. One prominent theorist argues, for example, that basic democratic principles require that noncitizens living outside the United States have a say in the formation of immigration law since they must obey it. This Article provides a legal response to these political theory developments, assimilating them, along with the facts on the ground, into an account of “illegal” migration as First Amendment speech.

If noncitizens’ …

Too Heavy A Burden: Testing Complicity-Based Claims Under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Kaleb Brooks

Indiana Law Journal

This Note argues that courts ought to recognize, in the context of complicity-based claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a sound distinction between burdens on religious conduct, which enjoy protection, and burdens on mere religious sentiment. In light of the structure of complicity-based claims, such a distinction between conduct and sentiment is the only sound approach that respects the Act’s requirements. The Note reaches this conclusion through a survey of the various complicity-based challenges to the Health and Human Services contraceptive care mandate for religious non-profit employers under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the period between Burwell …