Christian Employers Sue EEOC Over Transgender Rights and Abortion Mandate

Suit was filed yesterday in a North Dakota federal district court challenging two EEOC actions. The complaint (full text) in Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (D ND, filed 1/15/2025) alleges in part:

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has improperly applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to affirm and accommodate employees’ gender-transition efforts.... This mandate, published in agency “guidance” and on its website, threatens employers with large penalties if they do not use employees’ self-selected pronouns based on gender identity, and if they do not allow males to access female single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and lactation rooms.

Second, EEOC issued a final rule that twists the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).... , a statute intended to protect pregnant mothers in the workplace, to impose a nationwide abortion mandate forcing employers to promote and facilitate elective abortion....

The suit alleges that these mandates from the EEOC violate the free exercise and free speech rights of members of the Christian Employers Alliance.

Catholic Doctors Sue HHS Over Interpretation of EMTALA's Impact on State Abortion Bans

Suit was filed last week in a Tennessee federal district court by an organization of Catholic physicians challenging a July 2022 Memorandum and accompanying Letter from the Department of Health and Human Services that stated that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act pre-empts state abortion bans when an abortion is needed for emergency care. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD TN, filed 1/10/2025) alleges in part:

2. The Memorandum and Letter ... exceed Defendants’ statutory authority, were promulgated without procedure required by law, and are arbitrary and capricious, all in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Mandate also violates the rights of doctors under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment....

169. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in practicing medicine by caring for patients generally, and in caring for patients in situations subject to EMTALA. CMA’s members exercise their religious beliefs in treating pregnant women and their unborn children with respect and dignity, and in opposing involvement in the direct and intentional killing of unborn children in abortion. 

170. The Mandate substantially burdens the exercise of CMA’s members’ sincerely held religious beliefs. 

171. The Mandate imposes significant pressure on CMA’s members to practice medicine in way that would violate their beliefs because of the threat of investigations, fines, and other punishments and impairments.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

New Mexico Supreme Court: Local Anti-Abortion Ordinances Pre-empted by State Law

In State ex rel. Torrez v. Board of County Commissioners for Lea County, (NM Sup. Ct., Jan. 9, 2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court, in a case brought by the state Attorney General, held that municipal and county ordinances restricting local access to abortions and regulating local abortion clinics are pre-empted by state laws. The local ordinances which the court invalidated purported to require compliance with the federal Comstock Act that prohibits the mailing or receipt of abortion inducing instruments or drugs. The Court concluded that these local provisions are pre-empted by the New Mexico Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Act enacted by the state legislature in 2023. The court also concluded that other provisions in the local ordinances that purported to require local licensing of abortion clinics are pre-empted by several state medical practice and licensing laws. Newsbreak reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

South Carolina Doctors Challenge Abortion Ban on Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in a South Carolina federal district court by five physicians who contend that South Carolina's abortion ban violates their religious and conscientious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The complaint (full text) in Bingham v. Wilson, (D SC, filed 1/8/2025), alleges in part:

137. Plaintiffs hold sincere religious and conscientious beliefs that they have unwavering duties to respect the dignity of every person, help people in critical need, and place others before themselves. For Plaintiffs, that includes using their medical training to honor a patient’s request to end a pregnancy that threatens to deeply harm her.

The complaint focuses on the narrow exceptions from the abortion ban in South Carolina law for health of the mother, rape or incest, and fatal fetal anomaly and contends:

168. It is neither religiously neutral nor generally applicable for South Carolina to allow abortion under the Abortion Ban’s secular Exceptions while criminalizing abortion when Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs compel it in substantially similar circumstances. 

169. In sum, South Carolina has criminalized religious conduct while allowing secular conduct that undermines its purported state interest in similar ways. In doing so, the State has made a value judgment that secular motivations for abortion care are important enough to overcome this interest, but that religious motivations are not. South Carolina has thus singled out religious conduct for unfavorable treatment.

Plaintiffs also allege that the health and fetal anomaly exceptions in the law are unconstitutionally vague.

Washington Examiner reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ban on Firing Employee Because of Reproductive Health Decision May Violate Religious Employer's Expressive Association Rights

In CompassCare v. Hochul, (2nd Cir., Jan. 2, 2025), anti-abortion pregnancy centers and a Baptist Church challenge a New York statute which prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on any reproductive health care decision made by the employee or a dependent. Reviewing plaintiffs' expressive association claim, the court said in part:

[A]n entity like CompassCare, or another mission-based organization that advocates for a particular cause or set of beliefs, could plausibly allege that the compelled retention of a specific employee would impair its ability to express its message....

To sustain their challenge to the Act, each Plaintiff must adequately allege (and eventually prove) that the Act threatens “the very mission of its organization.”

However, the court rejected the claim that this provision violates free speech and free exercise rights.

The court also concluded that the law's notice provision which requires employee handbooks to include information on employees' rights under the New York labor law is subject only to rational basis review. The court said in part:

Requiring Plaintiffs to include among these wide-ranging provisions a notice informing employees of their available rights and remedies under a valid statute is not akin to requiring a crisis pregnancy center to distribute a notice about state-sponsored reproductive health services “at the same time [the centers] try to dissuade women from choosing that option.”... 

We conclude that the required notification does not interfere with Plaintiffs’ greater message and mission.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

HIPPA Rule Barring Reporting of Legal Abortions to Out-of-State Enforcement Authorities Is Preliminarily Enjoined

In April of this year, the Department of Health and Human Services adopted new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. The rules prohibit doctors, clinics and insurance companies from disclosing information about patients' reproductive health care that is lawful where provided when the information is sought by the patient's home state for the purpose of an investigation that may lead to civil or criminal liability there. (See prior posting.) In Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, Dec. 22, 2024), a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule against the physician and the clinic that are plaintiffs in the suit. The court held that the HHS rule violates a provision of HIPPA protecting state rules requiring reporting of child abuse. The court said in part:

Congress mandated that HIPPA cannot be "construed to invalidate or limit the authority, power, or procedures established under any law providing for the reporting of disease or injury, child abuse, birth, or death, public health surveillance, or public health investigation or intervention." ...

Plaintiffs argue that the 2024 Rule "unlawfully limits disclosures about child abuse" to states like Texas..... They aver HHS limits such disclosures by curtailing doctors' ability to freely report suspected "child abuse" and instead forces them into a "labyrinth of criteria" to determine what can and cannot be disclosed....

The 2024 Rule "limits" practitioners from reporting "child abuse" in several ways. It requires "covered entities" to determine whether the relevant "reproductive healthcare" was "lawful" under the circumstances it was acquired.... 

But, of course, many "covered entities" are not prepared or equipped to make nuanced legal judgments....

Again, even if a more nuanced reading of the 2024 Rule allowed child-abuse reporting to Texas CPS, a nonlawyer licensed physician is not equipped to navigate these intersecting legal labyrinths. And it is precisely such restraints and impediments that Congress forbade when it comes to child-abuse reporting.

Court Enjoins Most of Missouri's Abortion Restrictions, But Clinics Still Impeded from Reopening

In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State of Missouri, (Cir. Ct., Dec. 20, 2024), a Missouri state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of many of Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court found that many of the state's restrictive laws, including the state's total ban, gestational age ban and reasons ban, to be unenforceable under the Right to Reproductive Freedom constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters in November. However, the court refused to enjoin certain existing abortion regulations, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in challenging these. Among the provisions that remain in effect are the abortion facility licensing requirements, the requirement for in-person appointments and the requirement that only physicians perform abortions. In a press release, Planned Parenthood said that some of the restrictions that remain in effect preclude it from beginning to again offer abortion services, saying in part:

... [T]he practical effect of the decision is that no health center in the state can restart abortion services because none has an abortion license, or can get one under the state’s draconian requirements. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood health centers cannot comply with the medically irrelevant size requirements for hallways, rooms, and doors—and no health centers are able to comply with an equally irrelevant, invasive vaginal exam for patients seeking medication abortion. Plaintiffs will continue to fight to see that these restrictions are enjoined.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

House Committee Holds Hearing on Biden Administration's Use of the FACE Act

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing titled Revisiting the Implications of the FACE Act: Part II.  The hearing focused largely on whether the current administration has applied the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act unequally, and on the impact of the Dobbs decision on FACE. A video of the hearing and links to witnesses' prepared statements are available at the Judiciary Committee's website.

Indiana Supreme Court Lets Preliminary Injunction Against Abortion Ban When It Violates Religious Beliefs Stand

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court, by a vote of 3-2, refused to review at this stage in the litigation a preliminary injunction entered by lower courts in a suit claiming that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is violated when plaintiffs are prohibited by Indiana's abortion law from obtaining an abortion that their religious beliefs direct them to obtain. (See prior posting.) In Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2024), the Order denying the petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was not accompanied by a majority opinion. However, Justice Molter joined by Justice Rush filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

This case involves an unusual preliminary injunction—the trial court temporarily enjoined state officials from enforcing the State’s abortion law, but only for a particular group of women who are not pregnant and therefore are not seeking an abortion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court didn’t exceed its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction while the case continues to be litigated. But the panel also directed the trial court to narrow the preliminary injunction on remand. So thus far, this case is not stopping the defendants from doing anything. And we don’t yet know if it ever will, including because the defendants may ultimately prevail in the lawsuit....

I conclude the more prudent course is for the Court to review the case after a final judgment rather than following a preliminary injunction, which remains a work in progress and subject to more deferential appellate review. In essence, it is better that we review the trial court’s final answer rather than its first guess....

Justice Slaughter, joined by Justice Massa, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Our denial of transfer means the trial court’s “final answer” will lack the benefit of our current thinking. By saying nothing, we may leave the misimpression that the injunction’s only vulnerability is its scope. As my colleagues acknowledge, this case “presents transfer-worthy issues with previously undecided questions of statewide importance”.

Indiana ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Cert Granted on Whether Medicaid Beneficiary Can Challenge Cutoff of Funds to Planned Parenthood

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, (Docket No. 23-1275, certiorari granted 12/18/2024) on the question of whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries have a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified provider provision. The case arises from a challenge to South Carolina's termination of Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. This was Question 1 presented by the petition for certiorari, the issue on which the Supreme Court granted review. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to pleadings and briefs in the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Whether EMTALA Pre-empts State Abortion Ban

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in United States v. State of Idaho, (9th Cir., 12/10/2024). The case poses the question of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing emergency treatment to patients preempts state abortion bans when such treatment would involve pregnancy termination. Links to the numerous amicus briefs and court orders in the case are available at the Health Care Litigation Tracker. (See prior related posting.)

9th Circuit Narrows Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Abortion Trafficking Law

 In a 2-1 decision in Matsumoto v. Labrador, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed an Idaho federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban on assisting a minor in various ways to obtain an abortion without her parent's consent. The majority concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed only in their challenge to one part of the law.

 Idaho Code §18-623 provides:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The majority held that the statute is not void for vagueness, nor does it burden the right of expressive association. It concluded, however, that the statute's ban on "recruiting" is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The court said in part:

 ... “[R]ecruiting” has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access. It is not difficult to conclude from these examples that the statute encompasses, and may realistically be applied to, a substantial amount of protected speech....

In our view, the “recruiting” prong of Section 18-623 is neither integral nor indispensable to the operation of the statute as the Idaho legislature intended and therefore may be severed from the rest of the law. Without the “recruiting” prong, the statute criminalizes “harboring or transporting” a minor to “procure an abortion” “with the intent to conceal [the abortion] from the parents or guardian” of the minor— an intelligible crime that reaches the problems the legislature sought to rectify.

Judge Bea dissented in part. He argued that plaintiffs lack standing and therefore the district court should dismiss the suit. Idaho Capital Sun reports on the decision.

Missouri AG Issues Opinion on Which Abortion Restrictions Remain Enforceable After Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has issued Opinion Letter No. 22-2024, (Nov. 22, 2024) outlining the extent to which the state's restrictive abortion laws are still enforceable after voter adoption of a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. The Opinion Letter was requested by Missouri Governor-Elect Mike Kehoe. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter reads in part:

... Amendment 3 was adopted-- just barely-- by a margin of 3%. In a contest where the "yes:" side was able in effect to rewrite the ballot summary language, receive tens of millions of dollars in funding from out of state, and outspent the "no" side 6 to 1, this tight margin suggests the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote.

Nevertheless, until and unless voters have an opportunity to vote again ..., Amendment 3 will render some statutes unenforceable.... Missouri statutes entirely prohibit elective abortions-- i.e., abortions other than those performed because of a medical emergency.... Amendment 3 ... will generally prohibit ... officials from enforcing these provisions....

... [T]here will remain some circumstances where these five statutes are enforceable....

First, under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability....

Second, the Attorney General will continue to enforce these statutes in circumstances where parents do not consent to an adolescent minor obtaining an abortion. Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a "fundamental right ... to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."... This includes the "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."... Amendment 3 cannot displace that federal constitutional right....

... [W]hen the Supreme Court reversed the Roe line of cases, ... the court restored longstanding parental rights.

Third... [t]he right of parents to forbid minors from obtaining abortions should not be misunderstood to somehow imply a right to force abortion on minors.

The same is true for adults coerced into abortion.... Amendment 3 does not give abortion clinics a right to perform abortions on women who have been coerced....

Missouri Independent reports on the Attorney General's Opinion Letter. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Illinois Requirements for Insurance Policies to Cover Abortions

Suit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court challenging on both constitutional and federal statutory grounds Illinois statutes that requires health-insurance policies to cover elective abortions on the same terms as other pregnancy-related benefits and to cover, without co-pays, abortion inducing drugs. The complaint (full text) in Students for Life of America v. Gillespie, (ND IL, filed 11/20/2024), alleges that these provisions violate free exercise rights, the right of expressive association, the federal Comstock Act, the Coates-Snow Amendment and the Weldon Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

State Trial Court Strikes Down Wyoming Abortion Bans

In Johnson v. State of Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., Nov. 18, 2024), a Wyoming state trial court held that two Wyoming statutes barring abortions violate the Wyoming Constitution. One of the statutes bans all abortions with narrow exceptions. The other is a ban on prescribing or selling medication abortion drugs. The court said in part:

Under the Life Act and the Medication Abortion Ban, the State has enacted laws that impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women. Wyoming Constitution, article 1, section 38 provides all individuals with the fundamental right to their own personal autonomy when making medical decisions. The Defendants have not established a compelling governmental interest to exclude pregnant women from fully realizing the protections afforded by the Wyoming Constitution during the entire term of their pregnancies, nor have the Defendants established that the Abortion Statutes accomplish their interest. The Court concludes that the Abortion Statutes suspend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.

The court entered a permanent injunction, thus extending the temporary restraining orders that it had previously issued. Buckrail reports on the decision and reports that Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has indicated that the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.   [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the Kentucky state constitution of two separate abortion bans found in Kentucky statutes. The complaint (full text) in Poe v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 11/12/2024), alleges that both the six-week ban, and the near total ban violate the right to privacy and the right to self-determination protected by the individual liberty guarantees of Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

92. The constitutional right to privacy protects against the intrusive police power of the state, putting personal and private decision-making related to sexual and reproductive matters beyond the reach of the state. The right to privacy thus protects the right of a pregnant individual to access abortion if they decide to terminate their pregnancy. ...

98. The constitutional right to self-determination guards every Kentuckian’s ability to possess and control their own person and to determine the best course of action for themselves and their body. An individual who is required by the government to remain pregnant against her will— a significant physiological process affecting one’s health for 40 weeks and culminating in childbirth—experiences interference of the highest order with her right to possess and control her own person. The right to self-determination thus protects Kentuckians’ power to control whether to continue or terminate their own pregnancies.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Abortion Rights Proposals Approved by Voters In 7 of 10 States

In ten states yesterday, voters were asked to approve ballot measures that would guarantee abortion rights.  Voters approved proposals guaranteeing abortion rights in 7 of the 10 states.  Here are the results of those votes as of Wednesday morning. Ballotpedia has details of each proposal and updated vote figures:

• Arizona- 61.74% in favor; 38.26% opposed (50% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Colorado- 61.48% in favor; 38.52% opposed (73% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Florida- 57.13% in favor; 42.87% opposed (60% vote needed to approve the constitutional amendment) (93% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Maryland- 74.11% in favor; 25.89% opposed (76% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Missouri- 51.85% in favor; 48.15% opposed (95%+ of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Montana- 57.44% in favor; 42.56% opposed (87% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Nebraska- pro-abortion rights proposal: in favor 48.66%; opposed 51.34%.  Abortion ban after first trimester proposal: in favor 55.32%; opposed 44.68% (99% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Nevada- 63.33% in favor; 36.67% opposed (84% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• New York- 61.51% in favor; 38.49% opposed (85% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• South Dakota- 40.28% in favor; 59.72% opposed (91% of precincts reporting)

Ballot Measures to Watch in Tuesday's Elections

Tuesday's elections around the country will feature an unusually large number of ballot measures of particular interest to Religion Clause readers. According to Ballotpedia, there will be eleven proposals on abortion rights:

• Arizona Proposition 139
• Colorado Amendment 79
• Florida Amendment 4
• Maryland Question 1
• Missouri Amendment 3
• Montana CI-128
• Nebraska Initiative 434 and Initiative 439 (competing proposals)
• Nevada Question 6
• New York Proposal 1 (also includes sexual orientation, gender identity and other issues)
• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G

Voters in three states will cast ballots on repeal of now unenforceable bans on same-sex marriage: California, Colorado, Hawaii. The California proposal would also affirmatively guarantee the right to marry.

Colorado proposal would guarantee the right to school choice and parental control of their children's education. A Kentucky proposal would allow state funding for students in non-public schools. A Nebraska referendum asks voters whether to repeal a state law providing for an educational scholarship program for students in non-public schools.

American United's magazine Church & State discusses Tuesday ballot measures relating to church-state separation that will be presented to voters in eleven states.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Challenging Schol's Derecognition of "Students For Life" Club

On Tuesday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in E. D. v. Noblesville School District, (7th Cir., Docket No. 24-1698), In the case (E.D. v. Noblesville School District, SD IN, March 15, 2024), an Indiana federal district court dismissed various First Amendment and other claims against a school district and district officials who derecognized a high school Students For Life Club on the ground that it was not entirely run by students.  The derecognition followed lengthy discussions over the club's advertising flyers. ADF issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments on Standing to Challenge Indiana Abortion Law

Last week (Oct. 24) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (Docket No. 23-3247). In the case, an Indiana federal district court dismissed The Satanic Temple's challenge under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the state's ban on abortions. The court dismissed for lack of standing, finding that TST failed to identify any of its members who are pregnant and has no clinic of its own operating in Indiana. (See prior posting.)