EEOC Rules on Accommodating Abortions and Barring Transgender Discrimination Burden Religious Exercise of Catholic Diocese

In Catholic Benefits Association v. Burrows, (D ND, Sept. 23, 2024), a North Dakota Catholic diocese and a Catholic organization supporting Catholic employers challenged rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as well as Enforcement Guidance issued by the agency relating to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  In the case, a North Dakota federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EEOC from enforcing against plaintiffs requirements that they accommodate employees' abortions or infertility treatments that are contrary to the Catholic faith. It also enjoined the EEOC from enforcing anti-harassment provisions in a way that would require plaintiffs to speak or refrain from speaking in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; require plaintiffs to use pronouns inconsistent with a person's biological sex; or allow person to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex. The court said in part:

It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age.... One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.  

The current suit falls into a long line of cases that should be unnecessary in a country that was built on the concept of freedom of religion. Unfortunately, these cases are essential for faithful individuals where government mandates run counter to core religious beliefs. One would think after all this litigation, the government would respect the boundaries of religious freedom. Instead, it seems the goal may be to find new ways to infringe on religious believers’ fundamental rights to the exercise of their religions....

The CBA has detailed its sincerely held beliefs about human sexuality and procreation.... This belief includes a witness that these actions are immoral.... At the very least its actions would violate the retaliation provision because the employee would be fired for violating the Catholic faith by asking for an accommodation for the conduct at issue here. Because the interpretations of PWFA and Title VII threaten litigation for adhering to sincerely held beliefs, these guidelines and the underlying statutes place a substantial burden on the exercise of religion.

News From the States reports on the decision. [Thanks to several readers for the lead.] 

North Dakota Trial Court Says State Abortion Ban Violates State Constitution

 In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley, (ND Dist, Ct., Sept. 12, 2024), a North Dakota state trial court judge held that the state's current abortion law that bans abortions (with limited exceptions), violates the state constitution.  The court said in part:

[T]he court concludes that (1) the Amended Abortion Ban set forth in Chapter 12.1-19.1, N.D.C.C., as currently drafted, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness; and (2) pregnant women in North Dakota have a fundamental right to choose abortion before viability exists under the enumerated and unenumerated interests protected by the North Dakota Constitution for all North Dakota individuals, including women-- specifically, but not necessarily limited to, the interests in life, liberty, safety, and happiness enumerated in Articles [I], section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution.

The court also observed:

... [T]he decision in this matter may be one of the most important this Court issues during its time on the bench. However, in reaching the decision below, it is also not lost on the Court that, on appeal, this Court's decision is given no deference.

... The Court is left to craft findings and conclusions on an issue of vital public importance when the longstanding precedent on that issue no longer exists federally, and much of the North Dakota precedent on that issue relied on the federal precedent now upended-- with relatively no idea how the appellate court in this state will address the issue.

North Dakota Monitor reports on the decision.

Court Says HHS Used "Smurfing" To Avoid Review of Guidance To Pharmacies

In State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, (WD TX, July 12, 2023), a Texas federal district court refused to dismiss a challenge by the state of Texas and a pharmacy company to the Department of Health & Human Service's July 14, 2022, Guidance to Nation's Retail Pharmacies: Obligations under Federal Civil Rights Laws to Ensure Access to Comprehensive Reproductive Health Care Services.  Texas claims that the Guidance is an attempt to pre-empt Texas' abortion bans. Plaintiffs contend that the Guidance exceeds HHS's statutory authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. HHS alleges the plaintiffs lack standing. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ standing in this case turns on the answer to a single question: does the Pharmacy Guidance require pharmacies to dispense drugs for abortion purposes? Defendants argue now that the Pharmacy Guidance only “addresses situations in which a pharmacy would fail to fill a prescription for non-abortion purposes.” What’s more, Defendants argue that “Texas cannot point to any language in the guidance that purports to require pharmacies to dispense drugs for abortion purposes.” Thus, in Defendants’ view, because the Pharmacy Guidance is not about abortion, it “does not conflict with, or purport to preempt, Texas laws that restrict abortion.” But that argument perfectly evidences agency smurfing—an executive branch breaking up a policy goal into silos, hoping to sever the threads that link the compartmentalized pieces to the executive’s goal....

This administration has, before and since Dobbs, openly stated its intention to operate by fiat to find non-legislative workarounds to Supreme Court dictates. This Court will not play along with such a breach of constitutional constraints.

Earlier in its opinion, the court set out at greater length its concern about "smurfing":

A recent trend among federal agencies appears to be borrowing a technique common among money launderers to avoid judicial review. The technique known as “smurfing” in the financial arena occurs when the launderer divides a large transaction—which might otherwise trigger a bank’s reporting requirements—into various smaller transactions to avoid detection....

Agency smurfing, similar to financial smurfing, occurs when the executive branch smurfs one policy goal into multiple, supposedly “unreviewable” and “unchallengeable” pieces. Consider an executive branch, who, immediately following a Supreme Court decision, seeks to achieve a policy goal contrary to the Court’s holding. The executive branch knows, however, that courts will likely view that policy goal as incompatible with the Supreme Court’s reasoning. In its efforts to avoid scrutiny, and eventual discovery of their true purpose, the executive branch breaks up the policy goal into separate, seemingly unrelated and innocent pieces—an executive order here, a press release and guidance there.

Mayo Pharmacy, a co-plaintiff, also alleged violation of its free exercise rights under RFRA. The court held that the case was brought in the wrong venue to assert that claim, and it transferred that claim to the District of North Dakota where venue lies. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

North Dakota Governor Signs New Abortion Ban That Has Limited Exceptions

Yesterday, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed SB 2150 (full text) into law. The new law bars abortions except when it was intended to prevent the pregnant female's death or a serious physical health risk. The law also permits abortions during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy if the pregnancy resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest. AP reports on the new law, saying in part:

The North Dakota law is designed to take effect immediately, but last month the state Supreme Court ruled a previous ban is to remain blocked while a lawsuit over its constitutionality proceeds. Last week, lawmakers said they intended to pass the latest bill as a message to the state’s high court signaling that the people of North Dakota want to restrict abortion.

In its decision last month, the state Supreme Court concluded that the absence of an exception in the abortion ban for preserving the health of the mother is a critical defect in the state's prior abortion ban.  The new law is presumably designed to respond to that concern.

North Dakota Enacts A State RFRA

Last week, North Dakota Governor Dout Burgum signed House Bill No. 1136 (full text), North Dakota's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The new law provides in part:

... [A]state or local government entity may not:

a. Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in a particular situation is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest;

b. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk; or

c. Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

ADF issued a press release announcing the signing of the bill. [Thanks to Greg Chaufen for the lead.]

North Dakota Supreme Court: State Constitution Protects Right to Abortion to Save Life or Health of Mother

In Wrigley v. Romanick, (ND Sup. Ct., March 16, 2023), the North Dakota Supreme Court refused to vacate a trial court's preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of the state's 2007 abortion ban whose effectiveness was to be triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. In particular, the court concluded that the absence of an exception in the abortion ban for preserving the health of the mother was a critical defect in the law.  The court said in part:

The North Dakota Constitution explicitly provides all citizens of North Dakota the right of enjoying and defending life and pursuing and obtaining safety. These rights implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health....

Fundamental rights are those which are deeply rooted in history and tradition and are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.... North Dakota’s history and traditions, as well as the plain language of its Constitution, establish that the right of a woman to receive an abortion to preserve her life or health was implicit in North Dakota’s concept of ordered liberty before, during, and at the time of statehood....

Justice Tufte filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

At this time we consider only the preliminary injunction, and we need not decide the constitutionally necessary scope of any health exception.

Justice McEvers, joined by Justice Crothers and Judge Narum, filed an opinion concurring specially, and saying in part:

I write separately to explain how and why the rights protected under the North Dakota Constitution may be broader than those protected under the United States Constitution.

NPR reports on the decision.

North Dakota Enacts Law To Limit Restrictions On Religious Exercise During Health Emergencies

On March 29, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed into law Senate Bill 2181 (full text) which limits the authority of the State Health Officer and the governor to issue disease control or other emergency orders that restrict the free exercise of religion.  Under the new law, an order may not:

(1) Substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the order is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest;

(2) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than any secular conduct of reasonably comparable risk, unless the government demonstrates through clear and convincing scientific evidence that a particular religious activity poses an extraordinary health risk; or

(3) Treat religious conduct more restrictively than comparable secular conduct because of alleged economic need or benefit.

Williston Herald reported on the legislature's passage of the bill.

Transgender Health Care Mandate Violates RFRA Rights of Catholic Entities

In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Azar, (D ND, Jan. 19, 2021), a North Dakota federal district court in a 57-page opinion, granted a number of Catholic-affiliated health care and health insurance entities, and several Catholic employers, an injunction barring enforcement against them of transgender anti-discrimination rules that require them to provide or provide insurance coverage for transgender transition procedures. The court concluded that the anti-discrimination rules violate plaintiffs free exercise rights under RFRA. Becket Law has more background on the case.

Sioux Tribes Get Delay In Dakota Access Pipeline

In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (D DC, March 25, 2020), the D.C. federal district court held that the Army Corps of Engineers needs to prepare an environmental impact statement on the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline route under Lake Oahe in North and South Dakota.  Sioux tribes rely on Lake Oahe water for, among other things, sacred religious and medicinal practices. Inside Climate News reports on the decision.

Couple Sues Over Catholic Charities Refusal To Allow Adoption

AP reports that a North Dakota couple is suing Catholic Charities for $6.5 million because the organization refused to allow them to adopt a 15-year old girl who was in foster care.  The refusal was based on the fact that the adopting couple, in violation of Catholic religious teachings, were living together and were not yet married.  Their planned wedding was 5 months away and they had hoped the 15-year old would be a bridesmaid.

Environmental Impact Challenge To Dakota Access Pipeline Is Partially Successful

While in March a D.C. federal district court rejected a RFRA challenge by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to the Dakota Access Pipeline project (see prior posting), the same court has now held that the Army Corps of Engineers must reconsider portions of its environmental analysis of the project.  In a 91-page opinion in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (D DC, June 14, 2017), court held:

Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.

To remedy those violations, the Corps will have to reconsider those sections of its environmental analysis upon remand by the Court. Whether Dakota Access must cease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question of the appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing.

Red Green and Blue reports on the decision.

Court Denies Preliminary Injunction In Tribal Challenge To Dakota Pipeline

AP reports that a federal district judge in Washington, D.C. yesterday refused to grant a temporary injunction against construction of the portion of the Dakota Access Pipeline running under Lake Oahe.  The Cheyenne River and Standing Rock Sioux tribes had sued claiming that the pipeline violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (See prior posting.) The judge ruled on the motion after an hour-long hearing, concluding that the Tribe's religious exercise would not be infringed before oil actually begins running through the pipeline. Full arguments on the motion will be heard by the court on Feb. 27.

RFRA Challenge To Dakota Access Pipeline Filed

As previously reported, last month President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of the Army to expedite approval of construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). A federal district court had previously denied the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe an injunction against the pipeline. (See prior posting.) As reported by Jurist, yesterday the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe which had already intervened as a plaintiff in the challenge to the pipeline filed three motions in the case. First it asked to be allowed to file an amended complaint adding a Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim. (Full text of motion.) It then filed a motion (full text and supporting memorandum ) seeking a preliminary injunction, and a separate motion seeking a temporary restraining order (full text and supporting memorandum) directing the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the easement/right-of-way issued on February 8 that permits drilling under federally-owned lands under and surrounding Lake Oahe, explaining:

The Lakota people believe that the mere existence of a crude oil pipeline under the waters of Lake Oahe will desecrate those waters and render them unsuitable for use in their religious sacraments.

Dakota Pipeline Will Move Ahead Despite Native American Objections

Washington Post reports that in a court filing yesterday the U.S. Army said that it will grant developers a 30-year easement under North Dakota’s Lake Oahe.  This is the final permit needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Pipeline runs near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.  Tribal members claim that the Pipeline construction will destroy sacred ancestral Tribal lands. (See prior posting.) The Army is also terminating its plan to prepare an environmental impact statement on the Pipeline. Today's actions were authorized by a Presidential Memorandum issued by Donald Trump last month. (See prior posting.) Demonstrations and court challenges to the Army's decision are expected.

Trump Revives Dakota Pipeline, With Some Ambiguity As To Tribal Objections

As reported by the Washington Post, President Trump yesterday issued a Presidential Memorandum (full text) directing the Secretary of the Army to expedite approval of construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).  One reason DAPL has been controversial is that it was routed to run a half mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, impinged on sacred tribal burial and historical sites and also created oil spill concerns by the tribe. To deal with these concerns, in December the U.S. Army announced that it would not approve an easement for DAPL under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, urging developers to find an alternative route. (See prior posting.)

Yesterday's Presidential Memorandum leaves some ambiguity regarding protection of tribal rights.  The Memorandum broadly calls for the Army to "review and approve in an expedited manner, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, and with such conditions as are necessary or appropriate, requests for approvals to construct and operate the DAPL, including easements or rights-of-way to cross Federal areas."  However it then appears to qualify this as to the Lake Oahe easement, instructing the Army to:

consider, to the extent permitted by law and as warranted, whether to rescind or modify the memorandum by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works dated December 4, 2016 (Proposed Dakota Access Pipeline Crossing at Lake Oahe, North Dakota)....

The Guardian reports that supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux say they will fight the President's action.  Tribal chairman Dave Archambault said: "President Trump is legally required to honor our treaty rights and provide a fair and reasonable pipeline process."

Another Challenge Filed To HHS Rule on Transgender and Pregnancy Termination Discrimination

Another lawsuit has been filed challenging the Department of Health and Human Services rules that bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity or termination of pregnancy in the delivery of medical services by, among others, health facilities receiving federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs in this suit are Catholic organizations, including the entity that administers self-funded health plans for Catholic employers. The complaint (full text) in Catholic Benefits Association v. Burwell, (D ND, filed 12/28/2016) alleges that the rule requires plaintiffs to act in contravention of Catholic teachings:

HHS has taken a little-remarked-upon section of the ACA that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” and turned it into a mandate that coerces Catholic hospitals and other healthcare providers into performing, supporting, and even covering gender transition procedures, and coerces other Catholic employers, even Catholic dioceses, into covering them. The 1557 Rule also prevents Catholic entities from discriminating on the basis of “termination of pregnancy,” a phrase that likely creates an abortion mandate.

Catholic Review reports on the lawsuit.

Last month, a similar challenge was filed in the same North Dakota federal district court by different plaintiffs. (See prior posting). Last week a Texas federal district court issued a nation-wide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rules being challenged. (See prior posting).

Victory For Sioux: Army Says Dakota Pipeline Must Find Alternative Route

In a major victory for cultural and religious rights of the  Sioux Tribe, the U.S. Army announced yesterday that will not approve an easement that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota. The pipeline, whose original route would run only a half mile from the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, impinged on sacred tribal burial and historical sites and also created oil spill concerns by the tribe.  Alternative sites will now need to be explored. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports on the Army's decision as well as on the background of the dispute. In September, a federal district court had refused to enjoin construction of the pipeline. (See prior posting.)

Another Court Challenge To HHS Rules On Medical Services For Transgender Individuals

Following on a lawsuit filed in August (see prior posting), yesterday a lawsuit was filed by different plaintiffs challenging new rules (full text) adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services in May.  The rules bar discrimination on the basis of gender identity in the delivery of medical services by, among others, health facilities receiving federal financial assistance.  The complaint (full text) in Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Burwell, (D ND, filed 11/7/2016), filed by a religious order, a health care system, a Catholic university with a nursing program, and the state of North Dakota, alleges that the new rules violate various statutory and constitutional provisions. It says in part:

The Regulation not only forces healthcare professionals to violate their medical judgment, it also forces them to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.... The Regulation also undermines the longstanding sovereign power of States such as North Dakota to regulate healthcare, ensure appropriate standards of medical judgment, and protect its citizens’ constitutional and civil rights.

Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Obama: Army Corps Looking For Alternative Pipeline Route To Protect Sioux Lands

As previously reported, the Sioux Tribe has been embroiled in litigation attempting to stop construction of an oil pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in in North and South Dakota, contending that the construction will destroy sacred ancestral Tribal lands.  A federal district court has refused to enjoin the construction. Nevertheless the federal government said it would delay approval of the construction.  Now, NPR reports that on Tuesday President Obama told an interviewer that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is examining possible alternate routes for the Dakota Access Pipeline. Obama said in part:

We're monitoring this closely and I think, as a general rule, my view is that there's a way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans. I think right now the Army Corps is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline in a way. So we're going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans.

Federal Court Dissolves TRO Against Native American Pipeline Demonstrators

According to a National Lawyers Guild press release, yesterday a North Dakota federal district court dissolved an ex parte temporary restraining order it had issued a month earlier against the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman and others who had participated in demonstrations against construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Demonstrators claim that the pipeline corridor runs through and near many Lakota/ Dakota tribe sacred burial and historical sites. Last week a D.C. federal district court refused to enjoin construction of the pipeline, but federal agencies are considering whether or not to grant permits for the project. (See prior posting.) The effect of yesterday's the order is to leave dealing with demonstrations to local officials.