Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rodney Tyms-Bey v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 13, 2017No. Court of Appeals Case 49A05-1603-CR-439Published

1DissentNajam, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Tyms-Bey’s alleged RFRA defense may ultimately not succeed, but he is entitled to his day in court. The majority’s holding that, in effect, Tyms-Bey has not stated a claim under RFRA and that he is not even entitled to present evidence in support of his alleged defense is too quick to dispose of Tyms-Bey’s claim and denies him the par-tieularized adjudication that is expressly afforded to him by Indiana’s RFRA. Moreover, in enacting Indiana’s RFRA, our legislature explicitly reserved to itself, and withheld from our judiciary, the right to declare categorical…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. City of Boerne v. FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Speiser v. RandallSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API