General Counsel: Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Brief (2014)

USCCB Brief Amicus Curiae on U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 13-354 & 13-356 (Sebelius v Hobby Lobby), January 28, 2014

Amicus curiae United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (the “Conference”) is an assembly of the leadership of the Catholic Church in the United States.  The Conference seeks to unify, coordinate, encourage, promote, and carry on Catholic activities in the United States; to organize and conduct religious, charitable, and social welfare work at home and abroad; to aid in education; to care for immigrants; and generally to further these goals through education, publication, and advocacy.  To that end, the Conference provides and promotes a wide range of spiritual, educational, and charitable services throughout this country and around the world.

During the promulgation of the regulations at issue in this litigation (the “Mandate”), the Conference has steadily voiced its opposition to any rule that would require faithful Catholics and other religiously motivated business owners to choose between providing coverage for products and speech that violate their religious beliefs, and exposing their businesses to devastating penalties.  Despite the Conference’s repeated efforts to work and dialogue toward a solution, the Government has steadfastly refused to create a satisfactory exemption, either for individuals seeking to run their businesses in accordance with their faith or for nonprofit religious organizations beyond houses of worship.  As a consequence, employers are forced to facilitate the provision of coverage they find religiously objectionable, whether it be for the abortion-inducing drugs and devices at issue in this litigation, or also for the similarly mandated contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling at issue in related litigation.   

Moreover, the Conference is deeply troubled by the manner in which the Government has invited courts to improperly and erroneously delve into matters of religious doctrine during the course of litigation surrounding the Mandate.  Indeed, the test repeatedly championed by the Government would transform the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s substantial burden analysis into an exercise in amateur moral theology.  The Constitution, however, does not permit federal courts or government officials to be the ultimate arbiters of matters of faith. 

amicus-13-354-13-356-sebelius-hobby-lobby-conestoga-wood.pdf