Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 (2026)
Application
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
As added by P.L.3-2015, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana, 69 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana, 69 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” I.C. § 34-13-9-1. Moreover, a person “may assert the violation or impending violation [of the chapter] as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding .”
House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. d/b/a Harvest Christian Camp v. Rush Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Milco Dairy Farm, LLC, 91 N.E.3d 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “§§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (West 2017) ("RLUIPA"); Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Ind. Code §§ 34-13-9-1 to -11 (2017) ("RFRA"); or Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the Indiana Constitution.”
Indiana Fam. Inst. Inc. v. City of Carmel (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “1 Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 to -11. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-MI-2991 | September 10, 2020 Page 3 of 25 [3] Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Cities and the Companies now appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in determining that they lacked standing…”
Individual Members of the Med. Licensing Bd. of Indiana v. Anonymous 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). “See Indiana Code § 34-13-9-1 et seq. [2] The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the Abortion Law against Plaintiffs until their underlying RFRA claim could be resolved.”
Ali v. Liebel (N.D. Ind. 2024). “(the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA) and Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 et seq. (Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA).”
Bailey v. Geo Grp., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021). “§ 2000cc, the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 , and Indiana tort and contract law.”
Patel v. Alphabet Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “§ 1000bb-1(a), and the Indiana RFRA applies only to 6 “governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, 7 regulations, customs, and usages,” Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 . Because Google is not a government 8 actor or governmental entity,…”
Hines v. Sheriff of White Cnty., Indiana (N.D. Ind. 2021). “, and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, § 34-13-9-1, et seq., but the religious jewelry claims are brought by Hines only and are not part of the motion to certify a class.”
Patel v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “” Ind. Code § 34-13-9-1 . 9 || Neither state nor federal RFRA apply to Microsoft’s actions.”
Evans (N.D. Ind. 2025). “CODE § 34-13-9-1 et seq. Similar to RLUIPA, that statute “provides that a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.