Little Sisters of the Poor v. Price - Becket

AmiciAuthorsTopics13 Law ProfessorsMcGuireWoodsThe contraceptive mandate burdens petitioners’ religion by commandeering their property and using it to distribute contraceptives and life-terminating drugs and devices20 StatesAttorney General of TexasThe mandate’s alternative method of compliance is not the least restrictive means of providing no-cost contraceptives to petitioners’ employees50 Catholic Theologians and EthicistsJames Otis Law GroupAnalysis of Catholic moral theology regarding the Mandate207 Members of CongressCovington & BurlingRFRA reflects our broad tradition of religious liberty protectionAgudas Harabbanim of the United States and Canada, Agudath Israel of America, National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, National Council of Young Israel, Orthodox Union, Rabbinical Alliance of America, Rabbinical Council of America, Torah UmesorahLewin & LewinProblems from Orthodox Jewish perspective of treating houses of worship as of greater sanctity than yeshivasAmerican Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Catholic Medical Association, Christian Medical Association, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, National Association of Catholic Nurses U.S.A., National Catholic Bioethics Center, and Physicians for LifeAmericans United for LifeCertain FDA-approved drugs and devices covered by the Mandate can terminate an embryoAmerican Center for Law & JusticeAmerican Center for Law & Justice; Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Emory University School of LawReligious organizations provide numerous secular benefits to society and a rejection of petitioners’ RFRA claim will negatively impact their ability to provide services to those in need.American Islamic Congress, Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, Church of God in Christ, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Orthodox Church in America, Queens Federation of ChurchesSchaerr Law Group; Church of God in Christ, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Orthodox Church in AmericaTo avoid government intrusion into religious affairs, the test for “substantial burden” should focus on the sincerity of the religious belief and the objective seriousness of the penalty for non-complianceAnglican Church in North America Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, Ave Maria UniversityProf. Scott GaylordCourts may not usurp the right of religious adherents to determine their own views regarding moral complicityAssemblies of God, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Colorado Christian University, National Association of Evangelicals, Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual AdorationKirton McConkieRFRA properly accounts for the concerns of third parties by means of its balancing testAssociation of Catholic Colleges and Universities, Cardinal Newman Society, Catholic Relief Services, Family Research Council, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, Thomas More Society, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, World VisionUnited States Conference of Catholic BishopsFaith-based organizations do a great amount of good and should not be forced out of providing social servicesDavid BoyleDavid BoyleAmicus’ musings on religious discordBreast Cancer Prevention InstituteBioethics Defense Fund; Life Legal Defense FundMedical research regarding mandated itemsCarmelite Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Los Angeles, Religious Sisters of Mercy of Alma, Michigan, School Sisters of Christ the King of Lincoln, NebraskaGibson, Dunn & CrutcherHHS’s discriminatory regulations raise serious constitutional problems that can be avoided only by adopting petitioners’ construction of RFRACatholic Benefits AssociationLewis Roca Rothgerber ChristieThe accommodation burdens employers’ religious exercise by hijacking their health plans for the delivery of morally objectionable drugs and devicesCatholic Defense LeagueAndrew SchlaflyThe mandate violates Catholic beliefsCato Institute and Independent Women’s ForumCato Institute, Prof. Josh Blackman, Prof. Erin Hawley, Prof. Joshua HawleyThe ACA does not delegate to the Departments the authority to discriminate among religious nonprofitsChristian and Missionary AllianceO’Melveny & Myers; Liberty InstituteHHS impermissibly distinguishes between religious believers, fully protecting only those groups it deems sufficiently “religious”Christian Legal Society, Association of Christian Schools International, American Association of Christian SchoolsWilmer HaleDevastating effects on religious liberty if lower courts’ interpretation of the substantial burden standard is allowed to remainChurch of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Pastor Robert Soto and other members of the Lipan Apache TribeBaker BottsThe experience of Amici shows that allowing government to second-guess religious beliefs and favor some religious groups over others uniquely harms the very minority religions that RFRA was designed to protectCollege of the OzarksHusch BlackwellThe HHS regulations impose a substantial burden on the College’s religious beliefsCNS International Ministries and Heartland Christian CollegeOttsen, Leggat & BelzHistory of the government’s eight changes to the contraceptive mandate, each time claiming the latest iteration was the least restrictive means availableConcerned Women for AmericaNational Legal FoundationWomen value religious freedom, ministry, and serviceConstitutional Law ScholarsHunton & WilliamsRFRA properly balances religious freedom and third-party interestsCouncil for Christian Colleges and UniversitiesWarner Norcross & JuddThe government’s decision to exempt churches, but not religious colleges like Petitioners, is arbitrary and cannot survive strict scrutinyDominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist, Sisters of Life, Judicial Education ProjectPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; Judicial Crisis NetworkThe Government intentionally used Section 6033 to gerrymander the religious exemptionEagle Forum Education & Legal Defense FundLawrence JosephThe Mandate burdens religion and there is no compelling governmental interestEternal Word Television NetworkDuncan PLLCThe religious exercise at issue is avoiding complicity in someone else’s wrongdoing and the so-called “accommodation” does nothing to diminish that complicityEthics and Public Policy CenterMunger, Tolles & OlsonConsistent with familiar strict scrutiny principles, RFRA includes stringent standards with respect to compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means; the government does not meet these standardsEthics & Religious Liberty Commission, the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Southern Baptist Theological SeminaryNelson Mullins; International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist ConventionAnalysis of Christian doctrine and Southern Baptist teaching regarding the MandateFamilies of Residents at Homes of the Little Sisters of the PoorDwight DuncanStories of how the Little Sisters of the Poor have ministered to the elderly poorFormer Justice Department OfficialsKirkland & Ellis, Prof. Michael McConnellThe federal government’s arguments in these cases contradict the federal government’s arguments regarding moral complicity in the context of criminal prosecutionsFormer Rep. Bart Stupak and Center for Constitutional JurisprudenceCenter for Constitutional JurisprudenceUnelected, unaccountable regulatory agencies cannot create a compelling interest without clear authority from Congress, and that authority is lacking hereFoundation for Moral LawFoundation for Moral LawExempting the Little Sisters from the contraceptive mandate is a less restrictive alternativeInternational Conference of Evangelical Chaplain EndorsersChaplains’ CounselThe mandate is a direct attack on freedom of conscienceJustice and Freedom FundJames Hirsen, Deborah DewartAccommodating religious employers does not constitute invidious discriminationKnights of ColumbusLewis Roca Rothgerber Christie; Knights of ColumbusThe government cannot have a compelling interest in forcing some ministries to comply with the Mandate when it has voluntarily excused others that are essentially identical; Title X is a less restrictive alternativeLiberty CounselLiberty CounselHistorical underpinnings of religious libertyDr. Michael New, Charlotte Lozier InstituteLangdon Law, Thomas MessnerStatistical research shows that increasing access to contraceptives does not decrease number of unintended pregnanciesOrthodox Jewish RabbisHoward SlughAs a minority within a minority, Orthodox Jews will experience deprivations of their religious liberty if judges second-guess their sincerely held religious beliefsThomas More Law CenterThomas More Law CenterThe Mandate substantially burdens Petitioners’ religious exerciseU.S. Justice Foundation, Eberle Communications Group, Public Advocate of the U.S., Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, Southwest Prophecy Ministries, Daniel Chapter One, and Virginia Del. Bob MarshallWilliam J. Olson, U.S. Justice FoundationCongress never mandated that contraceptives, including abortifacients, be provided to womenWomen Speak for ThemselvesProf. Helen AlvaréThe government has not shown a compelling interest or a causal relationship between the mandate and improved health for women, nor has the government proven its claims about the mandate’s effects on women’s access to health services