A lawsuit over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Indiana’s near-total abortion ban is moving forward.
First filing the lawsuit in 2022, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana argues the ban violates some Hoosiers’ sincere religious beliefs about abortion.
The ACLU represented five Hoosiers of different faith backgrounds and Hoosier Jews for Choice. The state has argued against that religious exemption, and a decision will likely come next year.
Deborah Widiss, professor in the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the case could start a new conversation on abortion views.
“I think we hear a lot about religious-based opposition to abortion,” said Widiss. “What's maybe a little bit less familiar is that there are also religious-based beliefs where women would feel that abortion was appropriate and actually required.”
Indiana lawmakers severely restricted abortions in 2022 after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ban went into effect in 2023.
Widiss said abortion advocates have argued similar religious-based lawsuits in other states that enacted comprehensive abortion bans.
“I think it's already been important in just helping the public and lawmakers recognize that there really is a diversity of religious beliefs regarding abortion,” Widiss said.
What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and how is it being applied?
Indiana’s Act is modeled after a federal statute of the same name.
“When there is some other government action or law that substantially burdens the exercise of religion, essentially, courts take a close look to make sure that that law is serving a compelling government interest, and that it's the least restrictive means of serving that interest,” Widiss said.
In the original ACLU lawsuit, five people and Hoosier Jews for Choice described how Indiana’s ban hindered their religious beliefs as well as imposed health risks and criminal penalties.
For example, one unnamed Jewish woman in Monroe County said she believes the life of a pregnant woman “must take precedence over the potential for life embodied in a fetus,” and she said her Jewish faith allows her to terminate her pregnancy if it endangers her health or wellbeing. Though she wants another child, she faces substantial risks due to her age and history of severe fetal defects.
“Due to the Abortion Law, she therefore has refrained from seeking to become pregnant,” the ACLU’s initial complaint said.
Indiana’s abortion law has limited exceptions.
Abortions may be performed in Indiana in cases of rape or incest within 10 weeks of fertilization. Within 20 weeks, doctors may perform an abortion if a fetus has a lethal anomaly. Doctors may also provide abortions to save a mother’s life or if there’s a “serious health risk.”
Widiss said the ACLU argued that if those exceptions exist already, and if the state values religious freedom, then Indiana could add religious exceptions to the abortion ban as well.
What are Indiana lawyers arguing?
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office, led by Todd Rokita, argued against the ACLU.
They have argued the strict abortion ban protects the unborn and that Indiana imposed the least restrictive means of protecting that interest.
“Rather than avoid unwanted medical treatment or duties imposed by law that would impinge their religious exercise, Plaintiffs use religious beliefs to demand medical intervention to end human life,” attorneys wrote in legal documents. “The State is aware of no case in America holding that a religious belief entitles someone to medical intervention of any kind, much less intervention that ends human life.”
The state also argued the ACLU and the remaining plaintiffs haven’t demonstrated actual harm done by the abortion ban.
“As the last three years have shown, the mere fact that these women are sexually active is no guarantee that either of them will become pregnant, want an abortion, want that abortion for religious reasons, or be unable to obtain it because of S.B. 1,” state attorneys wrote in a November 2025 filing.
What’s next?
A Marion County judge heard final arguments over the RFRA violation last week, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported. A decision will likely come in 2026.
Another judge affirmed a preliminary injunction in 2024, a temporary pause on the abortion ban for a select group of people while the case works its way through the courts.
“It doesn't apply to all Hoosiers,” Widiss said.
The temporary injunction shows the court could agree with religious exemptions for the case, Widiss said. Now, the ACLU is seeking a permanent injunction, which would protect the remaining plaintiffs from Indiana’s abortion ban.
“I would anticipate that the permanent injunction would look pretty similar to the preliminary injunction,” Widiss said.
State attorneys have argued that the ACLU’s requested permanent injunction is too broad and difficult to enforce. Widiss said if the ACLU wins the case, she expects the state to appeal it.
“That might then go back up to the intermediate appellate court and potentially up to the Indiana Supreme Court,” Widiss said. “It could be a little while before it's fully resolved.”
Courts have been responsive to religious-based exemptions for political issues, such as vaccine requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, Widiss said.
“Does the same robust support for religious freedom apply in this context, where the political valences are flipped from those contexts?” Widiss said.
