Alliance Defending Freedom: It’s days away: The Supreme Court’s marriage decision is expected to come down on June 29.
Kansas Health Institute (Heartland Health Monitor): “It’s always great when you can score a win for religious liberty, especially when you have an attempt to force these owners of companies that have sincere religious convictions to violate those convictions under threat of severe penalties,” said Kevin H. Theriot, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Randy Reed and Sioux Chief.
Life Site News: “It’s always great when you can score a win for religious liberty, especially when you have an attempt to force these owners of companies that have sincere religious convictions to violate those convictions under threat of severe penalties,” said Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kevin H. Theriot, who represented the businesses.
Religion Clause: Earlier this month in a per curiam two-paragraph order, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, invoking the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, reversed a Missouri federal district court’s dismissal of a RFRA claim by a for-profit company that objected to the contraceptive coverage mandate.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State: Owners of secular businesses don’t have the right to tailor employee health care plans to meet the owners’ religious beliefs, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and other groups have told a federal appeals court. Americans United and three other groups on Friday filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case O’Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Wendy McElroy at Future of Freedom Foundation: The disagreement hinges on one question: “What is the exercise of religion?” In Breitbart (Nov. 25), legal contributor Ken Klukowski commented, If you agree with the Obama administration that the Constitution only protects freedom of worship — which is usually confined to what you do on Sunday morning in a church building — then you might think the HHS Mandate is okay. If instead you agree with the Framers of our Constitution that religious exercise includes living out your faith in your daily life, then you would find it appalling that the federal government would order a business owner to subsidize something he considers immoral, and possibly even participating in the ending of an innocent human life.
Religion Clause Blog: In O’Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Sept. 28, 2012), Judge Carol E. Jackson (a President George H. W. Bush appointee) first held that she need not decide whether O’Brien Industrial Holdings (“OIH”), a secular limited liability company, is capable of exercising religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment because, even if it is, the contraception coverage mandate does not infringe religious exercise rights.
Cardinal Newman Society: The ACLU and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri recently filed an amicus briefsupporting the mandate which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization procedures without a co-pay. The case, O’Brien Industrial Holdings v. Department of Health and Human Services, is a challenge by a private company which argues that the contraception rule is a violation of religious liberty.
Religion Clause Blog: The American Center for Law and Justice yesterday announced the filing of a federal lawsuit by a small business and its principal owner challenging on religious liberty grounds the Obama administration’s mandate requiring health insurance policies to cover contraceptive services