Religious liberty central to contraception exemption and school governance cases.
“For over 150 years, the Little Sisters have engaged in faithful service and sacrifice, motivated by a religious calling to surrender all for the sake of their brother,” said an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in the 7-2 decision. “But for the past seven years, they — like many other religious objectors who have participated in the litigation and rulemakings leading up to today’s decision — have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs. After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns — the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate.”
The court ruled that the Trump administration had the authority to grant an exemption to groups with sincerely-held beliefs.
The decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania sent the case back to the Court of Appeals “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
It was one to two decisions issued Wednesday having to do with religious freedom, the other one involving employment disputes at churches and other religious institutions.
The Little Sisters case originated in the wake of passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The Little Sisters and other objecting religious employers were eventually given a way to be exempted from what came to be called the “Contraceptive Mandate,” but only if they filed a form which, they contended, amounted to them giving a green light to the federal government arranging for the coverage. That, they said, made them complicit in providing the morally objectionable contraception.
“Consistent with their Catholic faith, the Little Sisters hold the religious conviction that deliberately avoiding reproduction through medical means is immoral,” the Supreme Court majority opinion said. “They challenged the self-certification accommodation, claiming that completing the certification form would force them to violate their religious beliefs by ‘tak[ing] actions that directly cause others to provide contraception or appear to participate in the Departments’ delivery scheme.'”
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the ruling.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito predicted that the case is not over, however.
“We now send these cases back to the lower courts, where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey are all but certain to pursue their argument that the current rule is flawed on yet another ground,” Alito wrote. “This will prolong the legal battle in which the Little Sisters have now been engaged for seven years — even though during all this time no employee of the Little Sisters has come forward with an objection to the Little Sisters’ conduct.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, noted that according to Justice Thomas, because the case could be decided based on the terms of the Affordable Care Act, the court did not have to reach the “closely related question of whether the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”
The Thomas More Society, a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty, called the decision a victory for both religious and women’s freedom.
While groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America criticized the ruling as an attack on “birth control coverage,” Helen Alvaré, Thomas More Society Special Counsel, commented, “The Supreme Court’s decision goes a good distance toward vindicating our most cherished Constitutional rights.” Speaking on behalf of Women Scholars, a group of distinguished female academics from dozens of law schools, universities, and seminaries, Alvaré said, “The [contraceptive] mandate threatened religious liberty and endorsed a reductionist and harmful understanding of women’s freedom. The religious exemptions as defined by the current administration appropriately counter this.”
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 Aleteia.org every month
- Aleteia is published every day in eight languages: English, French, Arabic, 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!