Written by Don Byrd
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the consolidated cases known as Zubik v. Burwell. The suits were brought by religious organizations claiming that although the Obama administration allows them an accommodation from the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Act, the religious accommodation is insufficient, and violates their religious liberty rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) filed a brief with the Court opposing the argument of the religious organization plaintiffs. Written by law professor Douglas Laycock, the brief makes the case that in fact it is the plaintiff’s reasoning, not the government’s, that poses a threat to religious liberty.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post today, Laycock outlines this argument. Here is an excerpt:
These organizations say that because the government exempted the insurers of churches and their integrated auxiliaries, it is required to exempt the insurers of all other conscientious objectors as well. Otherwise, it discriminates between two groups of religious organizations.
This argument is a mortal threat to an essential and widespread source of protection for religious liberty. There are thousands of specific religious exemptions in U.S. law. If legislators and administrative agencies cannot enact a narrow religious exemption without it being expanded to become all-inclusive, many of them will not enact any religious exemptions at all. And they will start repealing the exemptions they have already enacted.
On Wednesday, I will provide comprehensive coverage of the Court’s hearing, including excerpts from the transcript, when it is made available.
For more background on the case, and the BJC’s position, see the Zubik resources page.
