Aleteia logoAleteia logo
Saturday 15 May |
Saint of the Day: St. Isidore the Farmer
home iconNews
line break icon

Supreme Court to hear arguments by phone, including religious liberty cases

Andrey_Popov - Shutterstock

John Burger - published on 04/14/20 - updated on 04/14/20

Little Sisters case seeks final resolution on question of religious freedom.

The Little Sisters of the Poor will have their day in court again. Well, sort of.

In the midst of a continuing “lockdown” to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Supreme Court of the United States will be taking the extraordinary measure of hearing oral arguments by phone. And one of the cases the justices will hear argued in that manner is Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania.

The Court announced Monday that it will hear oral arguments by telephone conference on May 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 in a limited number of previously postponed cases.

“In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely,”said a SCOTUS press release. “The Court Building remains open for official business, but most Court personnel are teleworking. The Court Building remains closed to the public until further notice.”

The Little Sisters case arose from the controversial implementation of a rule that grew out of the Affordable Care Act. That 2010 law included a section that requires coverage of preventive health services and screenings for women. The following year, the Obama administration required employers and insurers to provide women with coverage at no cost for all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The so-called “contraceptive mandate” carried an exemption for houses of worship, but not faith-based institutions.

The Little Sisters of the Poor became a high-profile litigant in fighting the requirement. Although they operate elderly care homes and employ mostly lay people, they were vindicated in their claim that they should not have to pay for or facilitate insurance policies that cover devices and practices that are contrary to Catholic teaching.

Represented by Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, the Sisters argue that the high court has never definitively resolved the question of whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The 1993 RFRA says that government requirements placing a substantial burden on religious practices are subject to an exceptionally demanding form of judicial scrutiny.

In 2017, the Trump Administration issued Interim Final Rules that expand exemptions from the contraceptive mandate for organizations, colleges and businesses that have religious or moral objections to furnishing coverage for employees (or enrolled students), as well as for employees who object to having such coverage. But several states have sought to invalidate the final rules. Becket pointed out that a nationwide injunction against the final rules is based on the theory that RFRA and the Affordable Care Act “not only do not require, but do not even allow, the religious exemption rules.”

“It is clear that the litigation will not end unless and until this Court provides definitive guidance on the RFRA question,” says Becket’s application for review by the Supreme Court.

Brigitte Amiri, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, said the Trump administration’s approach of “allowing employers and universities to use their religious beliefs to block employees’ and students’ birth-control coverage isn’t religious liberty — it’s discrimination.”

But the Trump administration argues that the new exceptions were authorized by the Affordable Care Act and required by RFRA.

SCOTUS also will hear by teleconference Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, which involve two California Catholic schools defending themselves against fired teachers who claimed job discrimination. The schools maintain that they should be able to choose who teaches the faith to their students.

Religious Freedom
Support Aleteia!

If you’re reading this article, it’s thanks to the generosity of people like you, who have made Aleteia possible.

Here are some numbers:

  • 20 million users around the world read every month
  • Aleteia is published every day in seven languages: English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Slovenian
  • Each month, readers view more than 50 million pages
  • Nearly 4 million people follow Aleteia on social media
  • Each month, we publish 2,450 articles and around 40 videos
  • We have 60 full time staff and approximately 400 collaborators (writers, translators, photographers, etc.)

As you can imagine, these numbers represent a lot of work. We need you.

Support Aleteia with as little as $1. It only takes a minute. Thank you!

Daily prayer
And today we celebrate...

Top 10
Eric Clapton, Luciano Pavarotti, East London Gospel Choir
J-P Mauro
Hear Clapton and Pavarotti sing a prayer to the “Holy Mothe...
Philip Kosloski
Ascension vs. assumption: What is the difference?
Philip Kosloski
What happened between the resurrection and ascension of Jesus?
I.Media for Aleteia
These 30 shrines will lead the Rosary Relay for end of the pandem...
J-P Mauro
We need better church music, say Catholics in the Philippines
Philip Kosloski
What was the message of Our Lady of Fatima?
Larry Peterson
Benedict XVI called him “one of the most unusual saintsR...
See More
Get Aleteia delivered to your inbox. Subscribe here.