Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami

A collection of religious organizations have come together and filed this case in light of a 2017 New York law stating that all employers have to include abortion of medical necessity in their employee health insurance plans. The religious groups, including Roman Catholic dioceses, Anglican nuns, Baptist churches, Lutheran churches, and Catholic ministries, are suing on the basis of religious freedom.  The religious groups are suing under the notion that this violates their deep beliefs about the sanctity of life. Relevantly, a group called the Little Sisters of Poor went to the Supreme Court in the case Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and won in relation to the government requiring contraceptives unless they want to pay a large fine. The Supreme Court stated that it violated the nuns religious freedom to force them to provide these medications. The New York law, although it provides a religious exemption, has the petitioners arguing that the exemption is too narrow. The exemption states that those who “employ and serve primarily people of the same religion” will be granted an exemption, but those whose goal is a “broader religious mission” will not receive an exemption. The main question at the core of this case is: can New York require abortions to be covered under employee health care or is that a violation of the religious freedoms of religious organizations outside of the exemptions in place?

The Supreme Court decided to send this case back down to the lower courts in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. Fulton v. Philadelphia was a unanimous decision which established that the state of Pennsylvania could not discriminate against Catholic Social Services by barring them from placing foster children because they do not allow any children to go to same-sex individuals or couples based on their religious beliefs. This is setting up religious freedom to be of the utmost importance when looking into cases like this, trumping discrimination. This obviously brings back into light the notable Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. This case involved Native American men who were not provided with unemployment benefits after their termination because they were using peyote, an illegal hallucinogenic drug, during a ritual. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Department of Human Resources in this case, citing a slippery slope of allowing illegal activities under the guise of religion, so the compelling state interest was more salient than allowing an exemption for the men. The ruling was based upon the fact that there are neutral and general applicable laws which happen to burden religion. This ruling of neutral and generally applicable also was established in the decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. 

Looking back at Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Philadelphia anti-discrimination law only allowed exemptions at the discretion of the Commissioner and also placed a direct burden on Catholic Social Services by violating their right to religious free practice, whereas the Department of Human Resources had a neutral law which did not need an exemption because it was an indirect burden on the Native American men. The Court ruled that there was a direct burden on Catholic Social Services. This led to the decision that the City of Philadelphia must work with Catholic Social Services. 

Under the recent decision made in Fulton v. Philadelphia in 2021, the Supreme Court thinks that Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami should be looked at again by the lower courts. This means that the Supreme Court most likely believes it has now set enough of a precedent in Fulton v. Philadelphia to value religious freedom over any state law in place, even if there are exemptions in place under the law. The neutral and generally applicable establishments of Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah and Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith are important to understanding how Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Emami will be decided. 

Overall, I personally believe that based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Fulton v. Philadelphia the lower courts will rule in favor of the religious organizations. I do believe that the law that Philadelphia passed is discriminatory against Catholic Social Services and additionally believe that forcing religious organizations to cover abortions under their health coverage is in violation of their religious freedoms. Religious organizations should not have to provide access to abortions based on their religious beliefs and in order to have religious freedom, they need to be able to have an exemption from this law. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religious groups on the basis of contraceptives and so I do not believe that they will stray from this logic with abortions if it does make it to the Supreme Court after being reconsidered. This case is important because it is under a Supreme Court which favors religious freedom and exercise above other state interests. This raises the question for me of if LGBTQ+ discrimination is not important enough of a compelling issue to rule against discrimination, where is the line drawn?

https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/explainer-u-s-supreme-court-vacates-ruling-requiring-insurance-plans-to-cover-abortions/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/roman-catholic-diocese-of-albany-v-lacewell/ 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/diocese-of-albany-v-emami/