Written by Don Byrd
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court denied cert in an appeal over the right of pharmacy owners to refuse to carry certain products they object to on religious grounds.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Washington State regulation last year that required licensed pharmacies to timely deliver all prescription medication. The court rejected the argument from plaintiff pharmacy owners that the requirement to carry certain emergency contraception violated their religious freedom rights under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s decision announced today leaves in place that 9th Circuit ruling, which concluded that the regulation is *neutral* and does not target religious objections.
This case is a difficult one to untangle in light of the complicated factual record. The Court’s decision not to wade into it should not be read as an approval by the Supreme Court of such pharmacy regulations generally. In fact, this particular dispute may come back, if and when the rule in question is ever enforced against the plaintiffs.
A trio of justices dissented from today’s decision. Here is an especially pointed excerpt from that dissent, written by Justice Alito:
There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.
You can read the dissent in the Court’s orders today, beginning on page 7.
