Ind. Code » Title 34
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 34-13-9-9 (2026)

Violations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.

As added by P.L.3-2015, SEC.1.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana, 69 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana, 69 N.E.3d 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “” I.C. § 34-13-9-9. There are no general exemptions relevant to criminal prosecutions to be found in the text of RFRA.”
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). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-13-9-9. [29] Similar to RLUIPA, Indiana's RFRA prohibits "a governmental entity" from "substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”
Individual Members of the Med. Licensing Bd. of Indiana v. Anonymous 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “Ind. Code § 34-13-9-9 . A “person” in this context includes “[a]n organization,” “a religious society,” and “a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes.”
Indiana Fam. Inst. Inc. v. City of Carmel (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-13-9-9. [21] In addition to RFRA, the Cities have their own ordinances that provide against discriminatory practices that include sexual orientation and gender identity.”
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.