Until courts sift through the claims, the impact of vaccine mandates and religious exemptions will depend primarily on decisions made by individuals that promote or undercut the goals of public health and the responsible exercise of religious liberty.
The Fulton decision was not as sweeping a victory for religious objectors to same-sex marriage as CSS and many of its allies hoped. Nor was the decision as fatal to protections for LGBTQ people as Philadelphia and some of its allies feared. Instead, the Supreme Court resolved the case before it, giving little guidance for future religious freedom conflicts.
With so many pressing challenges facing our country, we know that many specific policy changes will take time. In the meantime, here’s what we think the Biden administration should do.
BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman looks at the Fulton v. Philadelphia case, which is a legal clash over religious objections to same-sex marriage and nondiscrimination policies that protect the LGBTQ community being fought in a particularly sensitive arena: the government’s foster care system.
While affirming the important distinction between public and private institutions, the seemingly simple holding in the Espinoza case masks a more significant shift in the law.
The newly proposed rule eliminating notice requirements for beneficiaries should be withdrawn. The rule shows a fundamental disregard for vulnerable recipients of government aid who cannot be expected to know the boundaries of religious liberty in this context.