Friday, July 03, 2026

Oregon's Definition of "Religious Employer" Violates Free Exercise Rights of Right-To-Life Organization

In Oregon Right to Life v. O'Day, (D OR, July 1, 2026), an Oregon federal district court held that provisions in Oregon's Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA) that effectively require Oregon Right to Life to provide its employees health insurance covering certain abortions and "abortifacient contraceptives" is unconstitutional as applied to Oregon Right to Life. Exemptions in the Act allow plaintiff to obtain employee health insurance from an insurer that is exempt from the Act's requirements. However, that company's policies still cover contraceptives that plaintiff classifies as abortifacients and do not limit abortion coverage to cases of imminent danger to the mother’s life. The Act does include an exemption for "religious employers" that meet the Act's definition. Plaintiff does not qualify for that exemption, however, because its purpose is prolife advocacy, not inculcating religious values, and because it does not primarily serve only persons sharing its religious tenets.

The court held that the RHEA's definition of "religious employer" violates plaintiff's free exercise rights. The court said in part:

While church and non-church distinctions may be permissible in other contexts, RHEA’s criteria here are not neutral or objective. RHEA’s religious employer exemption expresses a preference for religious organizations who inculcate and only serve members of the same religion. Defendant therefore owes the burden to show that RHEA passes strict scrutiny....

...  Defendant does not explain how exempting organizations that inculcate or only serve co-religionists and requiring other religious organizations to comply has any relationship to ensuring reproductive care for all Oregonians. The mere aim to limit the number of exceptions does not pass constitutional muster.... RHEA’s religious employer exemption is therefore not “closely fitted” to Defendant’s interest ...  and it is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff’s religious views.

OPB reports on the decision. 

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]