Progressives Turn to Religious-Freedom Laws to Shield Abortion and Immigration Policies

A number of progressive plaintiffs have filed suits that rely on constitutional free-exercise protections and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to seek waivers from laws governing abortion, immigration enforcement and supervised drug consumption. Among them, Hoosier Jews for Choice contests Indiana’s abortion ban on Jewish doctrinal grounds, while the Latino Christian National Network and other faith-based groups contest ICE actions near worship sites and defend sanctuaries for undocumented migrants.

Safehouse, a Philadelphia nonprofit, argues that its Judeo-Christian duty to care for the ill justifies an exemption from federal drug statutes. Scholars such as Josh Blackman describe the strategy as a cynical but legally savvy response to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, noting that the left now mirrors the religious-freedom tactics once used by conservatives. Critics like Ryan T. Anderson contend the claims lack genuine religious conviction and will likely falter where courts require sincere belief and a compelling governmental interest. The lawsuits will probe whether religious-exemption jurisprudence can be extended to progressive policy goals without eroding the original intent of the protections.