Religious Liberty vs. Abortion Coverage Mandate (Part 2)

As discussed in Part 1, the Catholic Diocese of Albany, together with other religious organizations, has filed suit challenging a New York State regulation that mandates abortion coverage in employee health insurance policies. These organizations object to the mandate because it requires them to violate one of the most fundamental tenets of their religion or moral conscience. They argue that applying the mandate to them violates their constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

As also discussed, any 1st Amendment protection for religious freedom is minimal under current Supreme Court case law. In Oregon v. Smith (1990), the controlling federal precedent [which happened to involve a Native American religion], the Court shocked religious liberty scholars by holding that “any otherwise valid law” defeats free exercise of religion. Then, when Congress enacted RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to overrule the Smith decision and to restore the heightened protection for religious liberty that earlier landmarks had required, the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) held that RFRA could not be applied to state laws.

With that as a backdrop, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, dismissed religious objections to the state’s contraceptive mandate for employee health policies. In Catholic Charities v. Serio (2006), the Court denied the request for an exemption sought by organizations with religious and moral objections to contraception. But the Court did not do so on the ground that the state had some very important reason that actually necessitated applying the mandate to the religious objectors. No. Instead, the Court explicitly rejected the so-called “compelling interest”/”strict scrutiny” test, just like the Supreme Court had done in Smith.

What the New York court did do was to adopt an extremely low level of protection for religious freedom. The Court held that, as a matter of the state’s constitutional law, the guarantee of free exercise of religion protects objectors whose religious freedom is being infringed only when they, the religious objectors, can prove that the "interference with religious practice is unreasonable, and therefore requires an exemption.”

Since the Catholic Charities decision is the controlling precedent in New York, and thus will govern the newly filed Catholic Diocese litigation (unless, of course, it is overruled or “distinguished”), let’s take a closer look.

To begin with, the rule applied in Catholic Charities—regardless of one’s favorable or unfavorable view of it--is a drastic reversal of traditional constitutional principles. The reversal is as drastic as the rule the Supreme Court adopted in Smith. It is the opposite of what the rules are for other fundamental constitutional rights.

Whether free speech, free press, racial equal protection, parental rights, or some other fundamental right is being infringed, basic constitutional law places the burden on the government to prove that the infringement is justified. More than that, basic constitutional law demands that the justification for the infringement be “compelling.” (The terms “paramount” and “overriding” are used as well.) But under the rule applied by the Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities, the justification for interfering with religious freedom need only be reasonable. And the religious objector bears the burden of proving that it isn’t.

Consequently, when the Supreme Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ decisions are combined, the result is precious little protection for free exercise of religion under either federal or state constitutional law. Assuming the Supreme Court does not overrule its Smith decision any time soon, [although there does seem to be support among some of the Justices to return to the earlier more protective 1st Amendment landmarks,] religious objectors in New York courts, such as those who have brought the Catholic Diocese litigation, must confront the state constitutional rule set forth by the Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities.

On its face, that Catholic Charities rule subordinates free exercise of religion to any law that interferes with it—unless that interference is proven to be “unreasonable.” Not surprisingly, when the Court of Appeals applied that [abysmally low and rather amorphous] standard for "protecting" religious liberty in that case, it had little difficulty rejecting the religious objectors’ challenge to the state’s contraceptive coverage mandate.

Of course there is nothing particularly unreasonable about a law generally requiring contraceptive coverage in health insurance. Of course there is nothing particularly unreasonable about applying that requirement to all employers. Of course there is nothing particularly unreasonable about the state government insuring contraceptive coverage in an expeditious manner. Of course there is nothing particularly unreasonable about state government wishing to avoid the administrative inefficiencies and complications of determining qualification for exemptions.

On the other hand, a perfectly workable accommodation for religious objectors might have been available in the Catholic Charities case. Protecting religious freedom and yet still insuring the availability of contraceptive coverage for employees who want it might well have been entirely feasible. [The Supreme Court concluded exactly that in its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, requiring an exemption for religious objectors to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. Of course, as previously noted, that Supreme Court ruling was based on the federal RFRA statute which does not apply to state laws.]

But the feasibility of accommodating religious objectors seemed irrelevant to the Court of Appeals' decision in Catholic Charities. The focus was on the legitimate legislative policy behind contraceptive coverage generally. The Court actually made light of the religious objections to paying for contraceptive coverage and, thus, gave little consideration to available accommodations.

So, in applying the Catholic Charities rule to the newly filed Catholic Diocese litigation, the religious liberty question is whether the abortion coverage mandate, as applied to those who view abortion as gravely violative of their most fundamental religious beliefs and moral conscience, is an "interference with religious practice [that] is unreasonable.” And the burden is on the religious objectors to prove that it is.

But here’s the question, about that question: what exactly did the Court of Appeals mean by “unreasonable" interference? That was not made clear in the slightest in the Catholic Charities decision. Was the Court referring to the law that creates the interference, or to the interference itself? And if that's not clear--which it isn't--then what about the factors that are relevant in determining “unreasonable" interference? Who knows?

Is the centrality or criticality of the religious tenet in question a factor? So, for example, does it make a difference that abortion is involved in the Catholic Diocese litigation rather than contraception? That what is involved is the objectors' most fundamental religious belief in the sanctity of human life and that abortion is the equivalent or akin to killing a human being?

Along similar lines, is the relative importance of the competing interests at stake a factor? So, for example, religious liberty versus the universal (or near universal) availability of abortion coverage? And more specifically, religious objection to subsidizing abortion, which is believed to be the same as or akin to killing a human being, versus the societal benefit of widespread affordable access to abortion through insurance coverage?

What about the actual need to interfere with religious freedom, or the lack thereof--a factor? So, for example, does it make a difference if religious objectors to the abortion mandate can readily be accommodated? That is, if some alternative to providing abortion coverage for the employees of religious objectors can be readily devised?

Is the degree or directness of the interference with religious free exercise a factor? So, for example, requiring religious objectors to pay for abortion coverage would constitute a greater intrusion than requiring them simply to notify employees that there are alternate means for obtaining it. On the other hand, requiring religious objectors to pay for health insurance that happens to include abortion coverage would constitute a lesser intrusion than actually requiring them to perform or assist or accommodate abortion.

And so forth and so on. A list of possible factors would be very long. But the Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities gave little guidance other than repeating the terms “unreasonable" and "interference.” And that standard is capable of morphing into just about anything the Court might choose in future cases.

Indeed, the Court in Catholic Charities did seem to understand exactly that. It seemed fully aware--or at least some members of the Court seemed concerned--that the standard as stated was somewhat amorphous and entirely susceptible of variously conflicting interpretations. In fact, the Court injected into its opinion a list of certain intrusions on free exercise of religion that, in its view, would amount to “unreasonable" interference. Here’s what the Court said:

“‘[A] requirement that all witnesses must testify to facts within their knowledge bearing on a criminal prosecution . . . if applied without exception, could abrogate the confidentiality of the confessional. Similarly, a general prohibition of alcohol consumption could make the Christian sacrament of communion illegal, uniform regulation of meat preparation could put kosher slaughterhouses out of business, and prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status could end the male celibate priesthood.’ We find these hypothetical laws to be well beyond the bounds of constitutional acceptability.” [Quoting Michael V. McConnell, “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion,” Harvard Law Review (1990).]

But the Court gave no explanation as to why those laws would amount to “unreasonable" interference. In fact, most of the laws identified are themselves perfectly reasonable. Requiring witnesses to testify? Health and animal cruelty regulations on slaughtering? Restricting alcoholic beverage service to regulated establishments?

Each of those laws serves legitimate government interests. None of them targets a religion. Any interference with a religion would be purely incidental to the general health, safety, and welfare purposes of those laws. Nevertheless, the Court insisted that applying such laws to religious objectors would be unconstitutional. And yet, no explanation was given.

The "unreasonable" interference standard is even less clear than that. Recall that the complete standard speaks of  "interference with religious practice [that] is unreasonable." Did the Court mean to say that the protection for religious liberty--whatever the "unreasonable" standard might mean--applies only to religiously required conduct, but not religious beliefs?

Did the Court use the term "practice" deliberately to mean that religious ceremonies, rituals, and other exercises could be protected, but not religious convictions, tenets, or conscience? So, e.g., the Catholic Mass, Jewish bris, and Jehovah Witness door-to-door proselytizing might receive protection from generally applicable laws; but belief that abortion is murder, that work should not be done on the Sabbath, or that the Bible is the word of God are not entitled to any accommodation. Is that what the Court meant to signify by its reference to "practice?"

In short, there seems to be quite a bit unsettled in the "interference with religious practice [that] is unreasonable" standard. That would seem to allow considerable wiggle room and discretion in its application. [That’s just a nicer way of saying that the Catholic Charities rule is cryptic and amorphous.] Future cases will give lower courts, and ultimately the Court of Appeals, the opportunity to refine its meaning. 

Perhaps the Catholic Diocese litigation, with the religious objectors seeking an exemption from New York's abortion coverage mandate, will prove to be just the right opportunity. And hopefully, any refinement will take religious objections more seriously, and will breathe some renewed life into the protection for the fundamental constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

[Disclosure: Again, I am pro-choice. But I am also pro-religious liberty, which I view as a bedrock of a free society. I have provided some assistance in the preparation of the complaint in the newly filed Catholic Diocese litigation, and I provided some assistance as well on the side of the religious objectors in the Catholic Charities case. Any services I’ve provided have been entirely pro-bono.]

Religious Liberty vs. Abortion Coverage Mandate (Part 1)

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York, together with numerous other religious organizations, has filed suit against the State of New York for requiring abortion coverage in its employee health insurance policies. (Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo [filed May 4, 2016].) The lawsuit is directed primarily at the state agency responsible for issuing the abortion coverage mandate--i.e., the State Department of Financial Services, which includes the former Department of Insurance. The religious organizations challenge the requirement as applied to them and seek an exemption.

These organizations argue that applying the abortion mandate to them violates their free exercise of religion as guaranteed under both the United States and New York State Constitutions. The mandate requires employers to pay for abortion coverage in the health insurance they provide to their employees. For the organizations who brought this lawsuit, as well as others with religious and conscientious objections to abortion, the mandate requires them to subsidize what they view as akin to murder or other grave evil. The mandate, in short, requires them to violate a most, if not the most, fundamental tenet of their religion or moral conscience.

In 2006, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, rejected a similar challenge brought by some of the same plaintiffs against the state's analogous contraceptive mandate. (Catholic Charities of Albany v. Serio [2006].) That decision is an essential backdrop to this newly filed lawsuit. And to understand the Catholic Charities decision, it is necessary, in turn, to understand 2 previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have allowed the Court of Appeals—as well as courts in other states--to decide the way it did against the religious liberty claims.

The Supreme Court rulings were Oregon v. Smith (1990) and City of Boerne v. Flores (1997). Those 2 decisions literally stripped free exercise of religion of virtually any 1st Amendment protection and of other federal legal protection against encroaching state laws. Yes, that may sound like some gross exaggeration. But constitutional scholars--whether they oppose that development or favor it--know that is precisely what the Supreme Court did in those cases.

[And no, it wasn't the liberal Justices who did it. Instead, it was the conservative Justices who were unsympathetic to objections raised by minority religions. See e.g., Justice Scalia's Record (Part 1), New York Court Watcher, Feb. 18, 2016; The Fall of Free Exercise, 70 Alb. L. Rev. 1399 (2007). More recently, with majority or fundamental religions having objections to laws enforcing minority rights, conservatives are much more supportive of free exercise of religion, and liberals much less so.]

In its Smith decision, the Supreme Court rejected the claim of religious objectors for an exemption to a generally applicable state law. In a ruling that bitterly and profoundly divided the Justices, the Court held that "any otherwise valid law" defeats a claim of free exercise of religion. To the surprise--no, shock--of most religious liberty scholars, the majority insisted that the 1st Amendment did not require the government to have 1) some particularly good reason that 2) actually made it necessary to interfere with religious freedom.

In fact, that rejected requirement, the so-called "compelling interest" or "strict scrutiny" test, had been the Supreme Court’s standard for protecting free exercise of religion in several previous landmark decisions. Indeed the “compelling interest"/"strict scrutiny" test is still the standard for protecting other 1st Amendment rights, as well as other fundamental constitutional rights. But the Court's majority in Smith, speaking through Justice Scalia, rejected that test for religious liberty. As a result, free exercise of religion became, and remains, the least protected of fundamental constitutional rights.

[Oh, by the way, the losing religious objectors in the Smith case just happened to be Native Americans.]

Almost immediately, Congress sought to overrule the Smith decision. It enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to restore the "compelling interest"/"strict scrutiny" test for free exercise of religion. However, a few years later in City of Boerne, the first major case involving RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no power under the Constitution--only the Court itself did--to impose that high level of protection for religious liberty against state laws. Congress could only do so against federal laws.

Soooooo, as a result of the Supreme Court's Smith and City of Boerne decisions, there is virtually no federal constitutional or statutory protection of free exercise of religion against infringing state laws. As long as a state law is "otherwise valid," any religious objection fails. No exemption for religious objectors need be made. A state may, with nearly uninhibited impunity, require objectors to violate their most sincere religious beliefs. That is so, even if an accommodation is perfectly feasible. That, at least, is the Supreme Court's current 1st Amendment jurisprudence.

[N.B. The Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, requiring an exemption for the religious objectors to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate--which, of course, is a federal law, not state --was based on RFRA's "compelling interest"/"strict scrutiny" test. No such exemption would have been granted under the 1st Amendment because of Smith's "otherwise valid law" standard. And the Supreme Court’s decision this week in the Little Sisters of the Poor case (Zubik v. Burwell), directing several circuit courts (federal appeals courts) to consider the possible accommodations between the federal government and the religious objectors, also involved RFRA, not the 1st Amendment.]

What all of this ultimately means is that state courts are largely free to adopt, or to reject, any protection for free exercise of religion under their own state laws. They can adopt the "compelling interest"/"strict scrutiny" test which the Supreme Court applied in the past. (Some state high courts have done that.) They can adopt a somewhat lesser protection. (Some of them have done that.) Or they can adopt a minimal, largely illusory protection--such as the Supreme Court's "otherwise valid law" standard. (And some have done that.)

But virtually any protection for religious liberty, or any lack thereof, that a state court chooses will almost certainly either equal or exceed the Supreme Court's standard. So virtually any level of protection, regardless of how low, will almost certainly be permissible under federal constitutional law.

This is the federal constitutional background in which New York's highest court decided the 2006 Catholic Charities case mentioned previously. The Court of Appeals was free to adopt virtually any standard of its own, high or low.

The New York court actually did have its own heralded religious liberty landmark, People v. Barber (Lehman, C.J., 1943). In Barber, the Court of Appeals made clear that New York would strongly and independently protect free exercise of religion under its own constitution. That is exactly what the Court of Appeals did in that case. It carved out an exemption for religious objectors from a generally applicable, valid law. And it did so despite the Supreme Court’s failure to do so under the 1st Amendment in a nearly identical case decided the previous year. (Jones v. Opelika [1942].)

[Notably, the Supreme Court reversed itself very shortly thereafter in Murdoch v. Pennsylvania (1943), citing the Court of Appeals Barber decision.]

Hence, in the Catholic Charities case, New York’s high court had a clear choice: follow its own proud precedent of safeguarding religious freedom, or follow the path taken by the Supreme Court in Smith and minimize the protection for religious liberty. The New York court chose to do the latter.

In a ruling very similar to the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith, and not at all like its own proud Barber landmark, the Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities adopted an extremely low religious freedom standard of its own.

The Court of Appeals in Catholic Charities expressly rejected the “compelling interest”/”strict scrutiny” test. It held that New York State government had no burden to show that there was any compelling reason (or even any important reason) to abridge free exercise of religion. Nor did it require the government to show that the abridgment was necessary. No, neither of those.

Instead, the New York court placed the burden on the religious objector--even one whose religious freedom is unquestionably abridged. The objector, whose fundamental right to religious free exercise is clearly being abridged, bears the burden of proving that the abridgment is “unreasonable.” That’s right: the government that is interfering with religious liberty has no burden of justifying its action. The objector, whose religious liberty is being abridged, bears the burden of proving that there is no justification.

[That is literally the opposite of what it is for other fundamental rights.]

Applying those rules, the Court of Appeals had little difficulty upholding the contraceptive mandate as applied to the religious objectors. In a unanimous decision in the Catholic Charities case, the Court rejected the free exercise challenge and denied the requested religious exemption.

In the next post, we will continue examining the Catholic Charities decision—which is less clear and more amorphous than it seems at first blush--and the implications of that decision for the newly filed Catholic Diocese litigation.

[Disclosure: I am pro-choice. But I am also pro-religious liberty, which I view as a bedrock of a free society. I have provided some assistance in the preparation of the complaint in the newly filed Catholic Diocese litigation, and I provided some assistance as well on the side of the religious objectors in the Catholic Charities case. Any services I’ve provided have been entirely pro-bono.]