Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell

 The Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of catholic nuns that dedicate their life to serving the elderly poor, have been involved in numerous legal battles dealing with religious liberty. This considerable amount of legal challenges began in 2011 when the United States Department of Health and Human Services ordered employers to cover controversial contraceptives in their health care plans. However, three times within the past decade would the Supreme Court agree with the Little Sisters of the Poor that the government could not force the nuns to help with coverage of contraceptives. Their cases have shaped how the Supreme Court looks at religious exemptions and how religious freedom should be upheld and protected. As of recently though, in the case

Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, the state of New York has expanded what employers must cover in their health plans to now include abortions. With the initial plan to give out religious exemptions, it has been noted that pressure from activists and differing groups pressured New York lawmakers to make this an all encompassing rule. This not only affects the Little Sisters of the Poor as various groups have joined in looking to dissent from this law and sue New York on the basis that the law forces them to violate their religious beliefs. This case is reminiscent of another court ruling dealing that dealt more closely with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This act prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. The only exemptions that lie within this act occur only if the burden given to the person furthers a compelling state interest if that burden is the least restrictive means to furthering the compelling state interest. This case is Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores

and this case began the Supreme Court’s decade long analysis of the Freedom Restoration act. Essentially, the family that owns Hobby Lobby felt as though the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment was being violated when they were being forced to cover the employment-based group health care coverage of contraceptives. In this case, the court had to decide if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allowed a for-profit company to deny employees health coverage of contraceptives due to the religious objections of the owners. The Supreme Court thus ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Their ruling essentially required the government to offer the same accommodations that are offered to non-profit organizations to for-profit organizations. The key point from the RFRA is that forcing these exemptions is not the least restrictive means of furthering governmental interest in this case. Additionally, it was recognized that this ruling and reading of the RFRA only applied to the contraceptive mandate. Yet, this was not the only case involving the RFRA, or the Little Sisters of the Poor, as both were looked at in Little Sisters of the Poor Saint Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. This case brought in the question of newfound exemptions, to the contraceptive mandate, given by the Trump administration to not-for-profit, education, and for-profit entities that have sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. This was sued by Pennsylvania and New Jersey arguing that the agencies did not have the jurisdiction to hand down these objections and that they were not justified by the RFRA. The lower courts agreed and shot down the exemptions, however the Supreme Court reversed this ruling. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the expansion of exemptions was within the power of these agencies. However, the court denied any majority opinion on whether the RFRA upholds these exemptions. With no ruling here, the Supreme Court is liable to more cases that ask these questions. Which is the case that the Little Sisters of the Poor are currently involved in as the questions of the RFRA are being directly challenged. In my opinion, the court should rule in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor. Previous cases upheld exemptions that were specifically catered to the contraceptive mandate and this is one that deals with abortions. With this in mind, I believe that religious organizations should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. That they should be able to freely exercise their religion. In accordance with this case, the RFRA clarifies that the compelling state interest must burden in the least restrictive means and I believe that this is not the least restrictive means to further this state interest.