Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in First Amendment
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Indiana Law Journal
Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …
"Water Is Life!" (And Speech!): Death, Dissent, And Democracy In The Borderlands, Jason A. Cade
"Water Is Life!" (And Speech!): Death, Dissent, And Democracy In The Borderlands, Jason A. Cade
Indiana Law Journal
Decades of stringent immigration enforcement along the Southwest border have pushed migrants into perilous desert corridors. Thousands have died in border regions, out of the general public view, yet migrants continue to attempt the dangerous crossings. In response to what they see as a growing humanitarian crisis, activists from organizations such as No More Deaths seek to expand migrant access to water, to honor the human remains of those who did not survive the journey, and to influence public opinion about border enforcement policies. Government officials, however, have employed a range of tactics to repress this border-policy "dissent," including blacklists, …
Too Heavy A Burden: Testing Complicity-Based Claims Under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Kaleb Brooks
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 …