Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

High Court Expands Religious Rights in Various Ways

Written on .

A trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have expanded religious rights, with one of the rulings pertaining to most private employers.  In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that the Trump Administration had the right to exempt employers that raised religious or moral objections to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prior requirements that health-insurance plans cover contraceptives.  Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that the ACA gives administrators "broad exception" to carve out religious and moral exemptions, under a law that expressly deals with requiring cost-free "preventive care and screenings" and leaving it to the federal agency to determine what is included.  Justice Thomas wrote that: "It was Congress, not the Department, that declined to expressly require that contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself." 

The Court did not address whether the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the type of sweeping exemption the Administration put in place.  The Trump Administration had provided a blanket exemption from the coverage requirements for any employer, including for-profit and publicly traded corporations, that asserted religious or moral objections.  The ruling was 7-2, with only Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting, arguing that the majority force women to pay the cost of their employers' religious beliefs.  A trilogy of U.S. Supreme Court rulings have expanded religious rights, with one of the rulings pertaining to most private employers.  In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that the Trump Administration had the right to exempt employers that raised religious or moral objections to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) prior requirements that health-insurance plans cover contraceptives.  Justice Thomas wrote for the Court that the ACA gives administrators "broad exception" to carve out religious and moral exemptions, under a law that expressly deals with requiring cost-free "preventive care and screenings" and leaving it to the federal agency to determine what is included.  Justice Thomas wrote that: "It was Congress, not the Department, that declined to expressly require that contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself."  The Court did not address whether the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the type of sweeping exemption the Administration put in place.  The Trump Administration had provided a blanket exemption from the coverage requirements for any employer, including for-profit and publicly traded corporations, that asserted religious or moral objections.  The ruling was 7-2, with only Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissenting, arguing that the majority force women to pay the cost of their employers' religious beliefs.  
In another ruling affecting religious schools, the Court extended earlier Supreme Court rulings that shielded religious organizations from employment-discrimination claims about ministers, in a ruling that religious schools were immune from age and disability discrimination claims filed by lay teachers.  Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Beru and St. James School v. Biel.  In a third case during the prior week, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a state could be required to give religious schools the same benefit it gives other private schools in a tax credit program.  
Many interpret the new rulings as adding to the suggestion that the Supreme Court's conservative majority is on occasion joined in by more liberal colleagues towards a framework that grants organizations more freedom in public policies they oppose on religious grounds.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

person staning next to someone in a wheelchair, outdoors

"No-Fault" Attendance Policy Upheld against Disability Claims

Employers continue to be confused about how to handle absences related to disabilities, as to applying their "no-fault" attendance polici...
person holding up a hand, stop, indoors

NLRB Issues First Unfair Labor Practice Complaint against Non-Competes and Training Repayment

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), former union lawyer Jennifer Abruzzo, continues to attempt to expand th...
ftc front door

Department of Justice's Anti-trust Division Announces Anti-trust Compliance Programs Include Training for Human Resources

There is relatively recent increased attention from government enforcement authorities of anti-trust issues affecting human resource prof...
stylized ai graphic

AI Hiring Bias Is New Focus of EEOC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Strategy Enforcement Plan for 2024-2028 published in the Federal Register last year ...
old fashio keys, hanging on a ring, attached to a wood board

Keys to Address Employee Dissatisfaction and Activism

We are in a new age of employee dissatisfaction and activism.  There were critical labor shortages during the pandemic, and increased con...
promo graphic, Procedural Accommodations: Efficiently Handling Employer Obligations

Procedural Accommodations: Efficiently Handling Employer Obligations

The ADA and other legislation – both states as well as federal -- often require “reasonable accommodations” in a multiplicity of settings...