The HHS Mandate requires many employers, despite any religious objections they may have, to arrange and pay for employee health insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling.
The American Center for Law & Justice ("ACLJ") represents the plaintiffs in five separate lawsuits challenging the application of the Mandate to businesses and business owners that object to the Mandate's requirements on religious grounds.
In addition, the ACLJ has been filing amicus curiae briefs, otherwise known as friend-of-the-court briefs, supporting the arguments of others who are also suing to invalidate the Mandate.
Today, the ACLJ filed its sixteenth amicus brief supporting challenges to the Mandate. In this case, the ACLJ supports the plaintiffs in Newland v. Sebelius, an appeal pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is based in Denver.
The Newland plaintiffs manufacture heating, ventilation, and air conditioning products and employ about 265 full-time employees. They are Catholic and have a religious objection to all of the Mandate's requirements.
The Newland plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction from the trial court, and, therefore, they have not had to comply with the Mandate so far, which would have caused them to violate their faith.
After the injunction was granted, the federal government appealed in order to overturn the injunction and require the Newland plaintiffs to comply with the Mandate.
In the ACLJ's brief, we explain that the appellate court should affirm the trial court's decision to grant an injunction because the Mandate improperly burdens the religious exercise rights of the Newland plaintiffs in violation of the laws of this country.
The brief also points out that more than 126,000 ACLJ supporters have signed a petition opposing the Mandate.
We will continue to keep you posted on our efforts to protect the religious exercise of those who are subject to the Mandate.
About a month ago, we discussed five critical failures of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Unfortunately, we now know that the highest Court in the land has determined – again – that this law will stand, despite its many flaws. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United...
It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court. Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority...
According to Jonathan Gruber, an architect of ObamaCare who helped the Obama Administration deceive the American people about it, the law has three key interrelated components: (1) rules dictating what health insurance plans must include, (2) the individual and employer mandates, and (3) subsidies...
Earlier this week, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow visited America’s Newsroom on Fox News to discuss the latest ObamaCare Supreme Court case with Bill Hemmer. The Supreme Court will issue its ruling in King v. Burwell any day now. The case centers around an IRS regulation that unilaterally and...