General
USCCB Amici Brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey (2019)
USCCB Amici Brief in the Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey, November 1, 2019
Amici will address the following question: Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans with contraceptive coverage.
The need for review is compelling because the Third Circuit’s decision conflicts with Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (per curiam) and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014). Like them, this case asks whether RFRA protects religious employers such as Petitioner Little Sisters of the Poor Peter and Paul Home (Little Sisters) from federal regulations requiring most large employers to include contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans. See 45 C.F.R. 147.130(a)(1)(iv) (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services); 29 C.F.R. 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) (U.S. Department of Labor); 26 C.F.R. 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) (U.S. Department of the Treasury). In holding that RFRA offers no relief, App. 48a, the decision below contradicts this Court’s precedents.
By sitting in judgment on Little Sisters’ religious objection, the decision below directly collides with Hobby Lobby. It rejects any attempt to “tell [objectingemployers] that their beliefs are flawed.” 573 U.S. at 724. Under RFRA, a reviewing court’s “narrow function” is to decide whether the religious objection expresses “an honest conviction.” Id. at 725 (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716 (1981)). Because there is no dispute that Little Sisters’ religious objections to the contraceptive mandate and the self-certification process are sincere, RFRA does not authorize further judicial inquiry into the content of those objections. Yet the Third Circuit brushed aside Little Sisters’ objection to the self-certification form as insubstantial. See App. 45a–46a.3 That conclusion cannot be reconciled with Hobby Lobby, which held that RFRA precludes a court from asking “whether the religious belief asserted in a RFRA case is reasonable.” 573 U.S. at 724.