In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (4th Cir., Oct. 16. 2026), the U.S.4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision affirmed a Maryland federal district court's holding that Catholic Relief Services violated Title VII and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act by denying health insurance coverage to an IT analyst's same-sex spouse. In a 66-page majority opinion, the court said in part:
Here, CRS asks us to expand both statutory and constitutional protections for religious employers. CRS argues that either Title VII’s exemption or the Religion Clauses should immunize all employment decisions by religious organizations so long as the decision is based on the employer’s religious belief, regardless of whether race, sex, or national origin is a but-for cause of the decision or whether the employee plays a ministerial role. We will not. The extremely broad and nearly unbounded immunity CRS seeks is not required by any statute or constitutional provision.
Judge Wynn also filed a concurring opinion responding in length to the dissent. Judge Wynn said in part:
Constitutional doctrines require boundaries. The dissenting opinion offers none that can reliably confine its principle to the circumstances it evidently has in mind. If a religious employer possesses constitutional immunity whenever an adverse employment decision confronts sincerely held religious doctrine, it is difficult to see why the principle would stop with objections concerning sexual orientation or gender identity. A sincere religious belief might likewise be asserted for an employment decision based on sex, race, national origin, or some other characteristic protected by law.
Recognizing the problem, the dissenting opinion simply asserts that employers would not do such a thing—at least when it comes to race.... [C]onstitutional law cannot rest so comfortably upon assurances of self-restraint....
Judge Quattlebaum filed an 88-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:
Rooted in the text, history and tradition of the First Amendment, the church autonomy doctrine prevents courts from reviewing a religious organization’s conduct based on its faith, doctrine or governance. John Doe’s lawsuit against Catholic Relief Services (CRS) asks the federal courts to do just that....
Recent Supreme Court precedent makes clear that regulations that burden the exercise of religion must satisfy strict scrutiny if their exceptions favor secular interests over religious ones. The majority interprets the statutes to do just that, and none are narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest....
This appeal involves the use of secular laws to regulate churches and religious organizations, not the general use of religion to justify discriminatory conduct. That’s why I attempted to describe the history of conflict between governments and the church on the church’s autonomy. On that point, it’s accurate that until recently, the government’s use of antidiscrimination laws to interfere with the internal doctrinal decisions of churches and religious organizations on issues that relate to their mission was uncommon. It’s also accurate that until recently, religious employers have not commonly faced claims under antidiscrimination laws for setting employment terms that require compliance with their sincerely held beliefs....
[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]
