10th Circuit Upholds State Insurance Regulator's Closure of Christian Health Care Sharing Ministry

In Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, (10th Cir., Feb. 27, 2025), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a trial court's refusal to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of a New Mexico cease and desist order issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance against a Mennonite church's health care sharing ministry. The ministry claimed that the order violated its free exercise rights.  The court said in part:

OSI’s enforcement action here was not because of Gospel Light’s religious beliefs, it was because they operated outside of the bounds of the NMIC [New Mexico Insurance Code] that applied to their business activities. In other words, OSI’s asserted interests were to protect New Mexico consumers by regulating the insurance industry, not to burden or regulate religious conduct. That other organizations, not entirely secular and not comparable to Gospel Light, merit partial exemptions under the NMIC does not carry the water for Plaintiffs that the NMIC treats a secular activity more favorably than a comparable religious activity. Consequently, rational-basis review applies.....

OSI sought to enforce the NMIC to protect consumers. The “regulation and licensure of insurance producers” are “important state interests,”... and OSI’s final order, which enforces the NMIC against Gospel Light, is rationally related to the regulation of health insurance. As such, the government action here satisfies rational-basis review, and Plaintiffs have not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on their Free Exercise claims....

Judge Carson dissented, saying in part: 

State governments must enforce statutes in a neutral and generally applicable manner.  In this case, that means the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (“OSI”) cannot regulate Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan (“Gospel Light”), a religious organization, more stringently than it regulates similarly situated secular organizations like labor unions and fraternal organizations.  But the district court reached the opposite conclusion when it allowed the OSI to impose statutory restrictions upon Gospel Light while exempting similarly situated secular organizations.  The majority upholds the OSI’s impermissible action.  Because the district court’s and the majority’s conclusions run contrary to established Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent precluding discrimination based on religious views, I respectfully dissent.

Suit By Mennonite Group Over Lockers For Homeless Is Settled

The Rocky Mountain Collegian yesterday reported on the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship against the city of Fort Collins after City Council added restrictions on the Fellowship's locker program for the homeless.  The city limited the hours of operation and required constant supervision of the lockers during those hours.  The Fellowship sued claiming that the restrictions are unreasonable, vague, overly burdensome and prevent the church from practicing its religious obligation of helping those less fortunate. According to the paper's report, a negotiated settlement has been reached, but must still be approved by City Council at its Sept. 3 meeting:

The City will pay a negotiated amount of $60,000 to FCMF’s lawyers to cover some of the costs incurred during the lawsuit.

As for the locker program, access hours are expanded to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., and a church representative no longer has to supervise during all hours of operation. Lockers will still be physically restricted outside those hours, but guests may access their belongings if a church representative unlocks the lockers for them. 

The church’s surveillance camera, installed early on in the program, will continue running 24/7. Footage will be retained for seven days.

Appeals Court Says Mennonite Woman Must Remain In Jail Until She Will Answer Prosecution's Questions

A Colorado appeals court. after expedited consideration, has rejected religious liberty arguments raised by a Mennonite woman who refuses to testify on behalf of the prosecution in a capital case.  Greta Lindekranz was an investigator for defense attorneys. The prosecution wants her testimony to rebut arguments that convicted murderer Robert Ray received ineffective assistance of counsel.  Lindekranz, who opposes capital punishment on religious grounds, argues that answering questions on direct examination by the prosecution would make her a tool in the prosecution's efforts to execute Ray.  The trial court held that her refusal to answer questions put forward by the prosecution placed her in contempt, and it ordered her held in jail until she elects to answer the questions. (See prior posting.)  In People v. Ray and Concerning Lindekranz, (CO App., March 8, 2018), the appellate court refused to reverse the contempt citation.  It held that even if strict scrutiny applies, the state has a compelling interest in ascertaining the truth and rendering a just judgment in accordance with the law.  The court rejected Lindekranz's alternative of answering questions from the court, with the prosecution and defense then cross-examining her.

The court concluded:

Ms. Lindecrantz is in a tough spot — caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. We take no pleasure in declining to extricate her. But the state of the law being what it is, decline we must.

Colorado Public Radio, reporting on the decision, says that an appeal will be filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.

UPDATE: AP reports (March 10) that Lindekranz will now testify because her refusal to do so is hurting Ray's appeal. According to her lawyer: "Based on this dramatic change in circumstance, she has concluded that her religious principles honoring human life now compel that she must testify."

Mennonite Woman Jailed For Contempt For Refusal To Testify In Capital Case

CBS4 reports that in Arapahoe County, Colorado, a Mennonite woman has been held in contempt and remanded to jail for refusing to testify for the prosecution in the challenge to a conviction by Robert Ray who was sentenced to death for murder.  Ray is claiming inadequate representation at trial. The woman, Greta Lindecrantz, was an investigator for the defense in the original trial. Prosecutors want her to testify to show the adequacy of Ray's lawyers.  However Lindecrantz says that her religious beliefs prohibit her from participating in the killing of another person, and that is what prosecutors are asking her to do.