Supreme Court orders reconsideration of religious objection to N.Y. abortion care requirement
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to take a second look at a religious challenge to a New York state requirement that employers provide health care plans that include abortion coverage.
The justices said the case should be reviewed again in light of their ruling ear l ier this month that Wisconsin had unlawfully denied charitable groups associated with the Catholic Church a state tax exemption.
In a separate action Monday, the court also took up a case from New Jersey arising from the state's investigation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that provide guidance to pregnant women. The technical issue is whether the state can enforce subpoenas against First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc., which runs five centers, seeking information about donors.
First Choice says the subpoena violates its free speech rights and freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment.
The New York case revolves around a regulation issued by New York in 2017 that requires employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion coverage in certain situations, including in cases of rape and incest.
It includes a religious exemption that applies to institutions but does not extend to religious-affiliated groups that serve the general public, such as those that provide food to low-income people.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other organizations sued, saying the exemption is so narrow it violates the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. In addition to Catholic entities, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Baptist groups are also among the challengers.
Lawyers for the religious groups say that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as no exemption at all. They argue that the justices should overturn the 1990 precedent, a case called Employment Division v. Smith.
The New York case has been litigated for years and already reached the Supreme Court once. Then, the justices ordered the state court to revisit an earlier ruling against the diocese.
That followed a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question in which the justices ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia that was barred from participating in the city's foster care program because of its opposition to same-sex relationships.
In another case with some overlap, the Supreme Court in 2020 endorsed a broad religious exemption to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control.
In a May 2024 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals again ruled for the state, saying that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the free exercise clause.
The state's lawyers argued in court papers that the religious exemption 'provides a denominationally neutral accommodation' based on objective criteria. As such, the measure — since codified into law by the state Legislature — is a 'generally applicable' law under the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent, they wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Sen. Tina Smith says she confronted Sen. Mike Lee about his 'cruel' social media posts on the Minnesota shootings
Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., said Monday that she confronted Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah over his social media posts about the suspect in shootings that took the life of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband. Smith said she confronted Lee after his 'cruel' posts, in which he included a photo of the suspected gunman and wrote, 'this is what happens When Marxists don't get their way.' 'I wanted him to know how much pain that caused me and the other people in my state and I think around the country, who think that this was a brutal attack,' Smith told reporters. She added that Lee needed to hear from her 'directly' and think about the 'impact his actions had.' 'I don't know whether Senator Lee thought fully through what it was, you'd have to ask him, but I needed him to hear from me directly what impact I think his cruel statement had on me, his colleague,' Smith said. A gunman fatally shot state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, and injured state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife Yvette Hoffman. Vance Boelter, the suspect wanted in the shootings, was arrested Sunday night. Authorities have described the shooting as a 'politically motivated assassination.' Lee's posts sparked condemnation from other Democrats as well, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
MAGA turns on Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett and give her brutal label as she threatens to upend SCOTUS
A new analysis appears to confirm conservative fears that Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has often swung to the left in her rulings. Many allies of the president have even referred to the justice - who has seven children, including two adopted from Haiti - as a 'DEI hire' and there are reports Trump himself has complained about Barrett's rulings. The associate justice was chosen by Trump and rushed through confirmation by Senate Republicans in 2020 ahead of the November presidential election. But since her appointment to replace liberal hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Barrett has joined her liberal colleagues on several occasions for rulings that have hampered Trump and his second term agenda. GOP outcry toward Barrett includes her judging against the blocking of foreign aid and against delaying Trump's sentenced on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records just days before his inauguration. That has led the liberal New York Times to call Barrett: 'One of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.' A new study of Barrett's first half-decade on the court prepared for the paper finds those worries may not be out of tune with her record from the bench. Several law professors determined that Barrett doesn't come close to conservative icon Antonin Scalia and 'is showing signs of leftward drift' as she plays 'an increasingly central role on the court. They cite her agreeing with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, specifically, 82 percent of the time during her second term, up from 39 percent in her first. Her central role includes writing her rulings separately from the other justices more frequently. Not only has she aligned 'more frequently with liberal majorities,' she is the Republican 'least likely to support Trump' in cases that involve the president himself. She has voted with liberal majorities 91 percent of the time while voting with conservative majorities just 84 percent of the time, though given the 6-3 conservative bend of the court, there are more conservative than liberal victories. Mike Davis, a Trump ally and conservative legal activist, is greatly disappointed in Barrett. 'We had too much hope for her. She doesn't have enough courage,' said Davis, who was criticized by phone earlier this year by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch for Davis' comments about Barrett on Steve Bannon's podcast. Davis called Barrett 'scared of her own shadow.' 'She is a rattled law professor with her head up her a**,' Davis, a former clerk to Gorsuch, told Bannon. Several law professors determined that Barrett doesn't come close to conservative icon Antonin Scalia and 'is showing signs of leftward drift' as she plays 'an increasingly central role on the court He also blasted her as 'weak and timid' to NBC News. Right-wing influencer Eric Daugherty attacked the justice in a series of tweets as an 'anti-Trump judge' and a 'big problem.' 'Barrett deceived people into thinking she was a reliable constitutionalist. The power has gone to her head. It happens with frightening regularity the last half century,' posted conservative radio host Mark Levin. Megyn Kelly went off on her on her podcast as 'a little squishy.' 'As a female who leans right, I'm kind of sick of like, the female conservatives who get appointed to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, now Amy Coney Barrett, like being too squishy,' she ranted. 'Get somebody with some rhetorical balls who will hold as fiercely to conservative principles in the judiciary as the left wing does,' she added. However, Noah Feldman, a friend of Barrett's and a Harvard law professor, claim the hype of Barrett's left leanings are overstated by both sides. 'It's a mistake by ignorant conservatives and wishful liberals to believe she's moderating,' Feldman said. 'She's exactly the person I met 25 years ago: principled, absolutely conservative, not interested in shifting.' In January, Barrett was among the same five-justice majority that ruled against Trump's request to halt him being sentenced on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records just days before his inauguration. But Barrett has also been a swing vote siding with conservatives as well. She was in the majority which overturned Roe v Wade in 2023. She was also in the 6-3 conservative majority last June that ruled presidents have some immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office. Trump nominated Barrett to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court after she passed away in September 2020. In announcing her nomination, Trump said Barrett was going to be 'fantastic.' 'No matter the issue, no matter the case before her, I am supremely confident that Judge Barrett will issue rulings based solely upon a fair reading of the law,' the president said at the time. Despite refusing to confirm an Obama Supreme Court nominee ahead of the 2016 election, Senate Republicans in the majority ramped through Barrett's confirmation. The move solidified a conservative supermajority on the country's highest court just weeks before Joe Biden won the election and Democrats flipped the Senate.
NBC News
7 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court orders reconsideration of religious objection to N.Y. abortion care requirement
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to take a second look at a religious challenge to a New York state requirement that employers provide health care plans that include abortion coverage. The justices said the case should be reviewed again in light of their ruling ear l ier this month that Wisconsin had unlawfully denied charitable groups associated with the Catholic Church a state tax exemption. In a separate action Monday, the court also took up a case from New Jersey arising from the state's investigation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that provide guidance to pregnant women. The technical issue is whether the state can enforce subpoenas against First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc., which runs five centers, seeking information about donors. First Choice says the subpoena violates its free speech rights and freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment. The New York case revolves around a regulation issued by New York in 2017 that requires employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion coverage in certain situations, including in cases of rape and incest. It includes a religious exemption that applies to institutions but does not extend to religious-affiliated groups that serve the general public, such as those that provide food to low-income people. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other organizations sued, saying the exemption is so narrow it violates the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. In addition to Catholic entities, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Baptist groups are also among the challengers. Lawyers for the religious groups say that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as no exemption at all. They argue that the justices should overturn the 1990 precedent, a case called Employment Division v. Smith. The New York case has been litigated for years and already reached the Supreme Court once. Then, the justices ordered the state court to revisit an earlier ruling against the diocese. That followed a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question in which the justices ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia that was barred from participating in the city's foster care program because of its opposition to same-sex relationships. In another case with some overlap, the Supreme Court in 2020 endorsed a broad religious exemption to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control. In a May 2024 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals again ruled for the state, saying that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the free exercise clause. The state's lawyers argued in court papers that the religious exemption 'provides a denominationally neutral accommodation' based on objective criteria. As such, the measure — since codified into law by the state Legislature — is a 'generally applicable' law under the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent, they wrote.
