Religion clauses

  • January 15, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Since issuing its landmark Roe v. Wade opinion expanding liberty 40 years ago this month, the debate over abortion has only intensified. Indeed, over the last few years state lawmakers have pushed for even more laws aimed at making it incredibly onerous if not impossible for many women to access the medical procedure.

    So did the high court’s Roe ruling spark a backlash and if so, should supporters of marriage equality gird for a similar reaction if the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality? In a post for Balkinization’s “Liberty/Equality: The View from Roe’s 40th and Lawrence’s 10th Anniversaries” conference, ACS Board members Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel tackle the question and conclude, in part, that a backlash against reproductive rights was gathering before the high court issued its Roe opinion in January 1973.

    Greenhouse, former Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, and Siegel, a distinguished professor of law at Yale Law School, write that the message emanating from the “premise of the Roe backlash narrative,” is that “minority claimants should stay away from the courts.”

    But that message, Greenhouse and Siegel write, is not correct in all circumstances:

    Of course, judicial decisions, like Roe and Brown, provoke conflict. The question is whether judicial decisions are likely to provoke more virulent forms of political reaction than legislation that vindicates rights. There was, is, and will be conflict over abortion, same-sex marriage, and indeed, the very meaning of equality. When minorities seek to unsettle the status quo and vindicate rights, whether in legislatures, at the polls, or in the courts, there is likely to be conflict and, if the claimants prevail, possibly backlash too. To the question of whether one can avoid conflict over such issues by avoiding courts, the answer from an accurate pre-history of Roe v. Wade is no. The abortion conflict escalated before the Supreme Court ruled.

    Greenhouse, Seigel and an array of other experts on liberty and equality will participate in panel discussions at the Jan. 18 – 19 conference at UCLA School of Law, which is part of the Constitution in 2020 project. (A schedule and listing of panelists is included at the end of this blog post.) See here for registration information.

    Several of the Conference’s panelists are providing guest posts for Balkinization on topics likely to be discussed in detail or touched upon at the gathering. In another of those posts, the ACLU’s Louise Melling examines the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers’ health care providers offer access to contraceptives. As Melling notes, there are a slew of lawsuits against the contraception policy, and many of them argue that employers’ religious beliefs should trump the ACA’s requirements on contraception.

  • January 8, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law

    The preventive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which include coverage of women’s reproductive health, took effect on January 1. To date, the thirteen district courts’ and three appeals courts’ decisions involving secular, for-profit companies’ challenges to the ACA’s contraceptive insurance mandate are all over the map. They lack a coherent rationale and reasoning. Instead, the courts should rule consistently that the exemption requested by the plaintiffs violates the Establishment Clause.

    According to the contraceptive coverage mandate, employee group health benefit plans must contain preventive care coverage that includes FDA-approved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures. Numerous secular, for-profit companies and their Catholic, Christian or Mennonite owners challenged the mandate as a violation of their constitutional free exercise rights and the statutory protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the federal government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion.”

    Among the plaintiffs in the secular, for-profit lawsuits are Weingartz Supply Company, which sells outdoor power equipment; Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts store; Mardel, Inc., a bookstore and educational supply company; Hercules Industries, which manufactures and distributes heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); O’Brien Industrial Holdings, LLC, which mines, processes and distributes refractory and ceramic materials and products; Tyndale House Publishers, a Christian publishing company; American Pulverizer Co., Springfield Iron and Metal, LLC, Hustler Conveyor Co., and City Welding, businesses engaged in scrap metal recycling and manufacturing of scrap-related machines; Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, a construction business; Domino’s Farms, a property management company owned by Thomas Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza; Sharpe Holdings, Inc., a non-bank holding company including farming, dairy, creamery, and cheese-making; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a cabinet and wood specialties company; Grote Industries, which manufactures vehicle safety systems; Triune Health Groups, which helps injured workers reenter the workplace; and Autocam Industries, which provides automotive parts.

  • November 29, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School


    John Breen, Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law recently criticized on the Mirror of Justice blog my ACS Issue Brief defending the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, and several of his points require a response.

    1. Professor Breen, like many mandate opponents, refuses to recognize that employers’ free exercise of religion rights are not the only liberties at stake in this conflict. Using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to exempt employers from the mandate would deny their employees contraceptive coverage without-cost sharing under employer health insurance plans. Employees would be denied this benefit because of religious beliefs they do not share. This is an obvious intrusion on employee liberty in general -- it denies employees covered by an employer health plan their statutory right to no-cost contraception coverage under the ACA -- and an obvious intrusion on their religious liberty in particular -- it imposes the burdens of observing the employer’s religious beliefs on employees who do not share them. The fact that employees would remain free to purchase contraceptives with their own money is no justification for loss of the statutory right to contraceptives without spending their own money.

    Professor Breen maintains that no government action is involved when employers are exempted from the mandate -- indeed, that government action is “entirely absent” when an employer decides “to refrain from paying for contraceptives under its health plan.” But an employer may make this decision to violate the mandate, if at all, only because it is permitted to do so (a) by RFRA as (b) applied by a judge. These are both government actions that, in the event, would result in an intrusion on employee liberty.

  • November 26, 2012

    by Amanda Simon

    The Supreme Court today revived challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate and contraceptive coverage provision. The challenge, brought by Liberty University, has now been given new life. With its 5-4 ruling in June, the Court held that the ACA and its coverage provisions were constitutional. Now, the future of the mandate is a bit hazier.

    Though the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, Liberty University v. Geithner, in September, the Supreme Court today ordered the appeals court to rehear the challenge, opening the door to what could be a significant legal battle. Liberty University, a Christian college founded by the controversial TV preacher Jerry Falwell, brought the suit saying the ACA violated its First Amendment rights as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring the school to provide insurance that could be used for abortions.

    The Fourth Circuit based its dismissal of the university’s case on standing, saying it could not challenge a tax that had yet to be implemented. However, in its ruling on the ACA, Talking Points Memo reports, “the Supreme Court dismissed the standing argument, implicitly conceding that taxpayers may challenge the ACA’s mandates, even ones that have yet to take effect — providing Liberty an opening to move forward with its case.”

  • November 7, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    State court judges in Iowa and Florida remain on the bench despite the fevered and well-funded efforts to remove them because of their involvement in rulings that rankled conservatives.

    In Iowa, State Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, who was part of the majority in the 2009 Varnum v. Brien decision that supported marriage equality, retained his seat with about 55 percent of the vote. In Iowa 50 percent of the vote is needed to hold judicial seats. Some of the same organizations and individuals who successfully removed three other Iowa Supreme Court justices in 2010 – again for their involvement in advancing marriage equality – were targeting Wiggins. Typically judicial retention votes are intended for removing judges from the bench because of ethical breaches, corruption or incompetence. But religious right groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association and the so-called Iowans for Freedom committee abused the retention vote to go after judges for doing their jobs. But their efforts this time faltered.  

    Religious right activist Bob Vander Plaats, also involved with the Iowans freedom group, told the Des Moines Register that Wiggins’ retention vote of nearly 55 percent was “not a great validation for Justice Wiggins.”

    The newspaper noted that the other judges up for retention votes, but not targeted by the religious groups, retained their high court seats with vote “totals of more than 74 percent.” The Register surmises that the lower vote for Wiggins (pictured) might fuel another effort by religious right groups to target the other justices involved in the Varnum majority when they face retention votes in 2016. Plaats refused to speculate on those justices.

    In Florida an effort funded by a Super Pac of the billionaire rightwing Koch brothers also flopped. The brothers’ Super Pac had urged voters to remove three Florida Supreme Court justices, primarily for their involvement in scuttling a 2010 ballot measure declaring that Affordable Care Act would not the law in the Florida. (This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law’s integral provision, the one requiring most Americans starting carrying a minimum amount of health care insurance in 2014.)

    But Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince “easily” survived the retention votes, The Miami Heraldreports. As in Iowa, the justices only need a 50 percent vote to retain their seats. Despite “an unprecedented campaign” to dislodge the justices, The Herald reported that all three received “about two-thirds of the vote, with most votes counted.”