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.
Promising to bring costs down and increase access on the one hand, and enacted with enormous fanfare and unequaled deception on the other, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) became law in 2010. This law was perhaps the most ambitious social legislation in...
One of Justice Scalia’s most memorable moments came in a compelling dissent to one of the recent ObamaCare cases. He cut through the majority opinion’s ambiguous, contorted, and complex legal justification for upholding the “SCOTUScare” exchanges in just two words: “ Pure applesauce. ” Pondering...
Thanks to two decisions of a federal court of appeals handed down today ( here and here ), it is now almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether the Obama administration can force religious entities, institutions, and groups -- under pain of severe financial penalties...
Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court held in the Hobby Lobby decision that the HHS Mandate, a federal regulation requiring non-exempt employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs and services to its employees, violated the religious rights of closely held corporations and their owners. It was...