April 13, 2016, The Washington Post
What did the government do in its supplemental brief? It hemmed and it hawed. It complained about the question, then it said no, then it said yes, then it spent pages asking the Court to do certain things if it lost.
Meanwhile, the petitioners responded in their first paragraph: “The answer to that question is clear and simple: Yes.”
March 30, 2016, The Washington Post
The new order demanding additional briefing in the contraceptive cases, which were argued before the justices last week, was the most unexpected and unusual of the actions. Even more surprising, the court asked the parties to react to a compromise it created.
Washington Post, January 20, 2015
It should also help the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which won both this case and Hobby Lobby, raise funds for such litigation.
Washington Post, January 20, 2015
Eric Rassbach from the Becket Fund — the public interest law firm that on Tuesday won the Holt v. Hobbs prisoner rights case — was kind enough to pass along his thoughts on what the case means for religious liberty more generally:
July 1, 2014 – Washington Post
“Religious freedom groups are preparing for the next contraception coverage case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius.”
Washington Post, June 30, 2014
“This is a landmark decision for religious freedom,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has played a leading role in representing challengers. “The Supreme Court recognized that Americans do not lose their religious freedom when they run a family business.”
Washington Post, June 30, 2014
Hasson’s vision and will has led Becket from a one-man show in 1994 to the Supreme Court, where justices on Monday ruled in Becket’s favor, agreeing that closely held corporations can have religious objections. When the case was argued this spring, some said it could affect church-state relations for decades. Becket’s client, Hobby Lobby, a mega-chain of craft stores, challenged the White House and the Affordable Care Act, which requires employers to cover all kinds of birth control, even forms to which owners have a religious objection.
Washington Post June 30, 2014
Here are a few initial thoughts on today’s decision in Hobby Lobby from the perspective of a law firm — The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — that has been litigating these cases against the Department of Justice across the country for almost three years, and was counsel for Hobby Lobby in this case. First I offer some highlights from the opinions by Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy, and then I point out some near-term effects on religious liberty litigation.
Washington Post, July 26, 2013
“It looks like we’re heading for a Supreme Court review,” said Kyle Duncan, general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is active in opposing the contraceptive mandate.
Washington Post, July 19, 2013
Kyle Duncan, Hobby Lobby’s lead attorney, argued that requiring the company to comply with the mandate would be a burden to religious exercise. The U.S. Department of Human Services has granted exemptions from portions of the health care law for plans that cover tens of millions of people and an injunction for Hobby Lobby would be in the public interest and would not burden the government, he said.
Washington Post, May 30, 2013
“Pray that we know the path to follow, and have the courage to follow it.”
The Washington Post, April 2, 2013
At least two dozen suits by private businesses have been filed against the contraception mandate, and 16 have been granted a temporary injunction while the lawsuits are pending, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is spearheading much of the opposition to the mandate.
“It seems to me the administration has won one legal challenge and there are 23 others waiting in the wings” –Mark Rienzi, Becket Fund Continue reading “Washington Post: Affordable Care Act ruling promises religious fights for the foreseeable future”
Washington Post, May, 2012. Link to article
From homeland security to healthcare, the federal government now has the power to reach further than ever into American society. But so far, the feds have sensibly stayed out of the business of appointing religious leaders.
Now, in a stunning about-face, the Obama Administration has urged the Supreme Court to allow courts to decide virtually any dispute between a church and its ministers. In the administration’s view, juries and judges, not congregations and bishops, should have the final say on who is fit for religious ministry. Fundamental questions of theology would be resolved in the same way as slip-and-fall cases. Plaintiffs’ lawyers would go into a religious feeding frenzy.
The DOJ made this astounding declaration in its brief for a Supreme Court case called Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which some observers have called the most important religious freedom case in 20 years.
The case started when Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at a church-run grade school, wanted to return from a disability-related leave of absence. The school, which is part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, had far exceeded its legal obligations in accommodating her disability. But when some board members expressed concern that she wasn’t medically ready for work, she threatened to sue for discrimination.
That threat had serious religious implications. Like many denominations, the Lutheran Church has long taught that Christians should resolve their disputes within the church, not in secular courts. Perich’s threat publicly rejected that teaching.
Perich, moreover, wasn’t just any employee, but a “called” teacher. Besides teaching secular subjects like science and English, she was a Lutheran “commissioned minister” who was expected to lead her students in prayer, to provide their primary religious instruction, and lead them in worship. In her church’s view, Perich’s refusal to follow Lutheran teaching on dispute resolution made it impossible for her to carry out these religious duties. Accordingly, the congregation voted to rescind her call.
Perich and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responded by suing the church. A federal district court dismissed the case, finding that it would be inappropriate for judges to second-guess a church’s decision about who should carry out important religious duties. After an appeals court reversed that outcome, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which is set for argument on October 5.
The key issue in the case is an obscure doctrine with big consequences. The doctrine, called the “ministerial exception,” bars most employment-related lawsuits brought against religious organizations by employees performing religious functions.
The point of the ministerial exception isn’t that churches always behave well (they don’t), or that they’re above the law (they’re not). Rather, it recognizes if ministerial employees could sue for discrimination, courts would need to determine whether religious organizations had made the “right” decisions about hiring and firing their ministers. Those kinds of essentially religious decisions are above secular courts’ pay grade.
The lower courts have acknowledged the ministerial exception for forty years. The EEOC’s own compliance manual acknowledges it. So do Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief against the church. Until last month, both sides assumed that the question before the court was whether the ministerial exception applied to Perich-not whether it exists.
As we explained in our brief for Hosanna-Tabor, “This would be a revolution in relations between church and state.”
This isn’t the first time the Obama administration has sought to control religious communities’ decisions about their employees. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued new guidelines listing “preventative care” benefits for women that all insurance plans must cover, without copay or deductible. These included every FDA-approved mode of sterilization and contraception, including emergency contraceptives that can destroy fertilized eggs. The only employers exempt from this requirement are churches and religious orders – but only if they don’t help or hire people outside their own faith. As a result, thousands of religious schools, hospitals, and other charities must now choose between breaking the law and violating their consciences.
If the Supreme Court buys the DOJ’s argument, many religious communities will face a similarly stark choice: either accept ministers that they consider unfit, or endure endless litigation. The liability would be crippling – not only for churches, but for religious liberty.
William P. Mumma is the president of the Becket Fund, a non-profit, public- interest law firm that defends religious liberty.
““The purpose of the ministerial exception is to protect the right of religious institutions to choose their religious leaders,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund.