Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/388277891/Kavanaugh-dissent-in-Priests-of-Life-case
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:27:34+00:00

Document:
for the plaintiff religious organizations.
them as closely and carefully and dispassionately as we can.
either by the insurer itself or by the United States.
administrators and health insurance issuers. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(ii)(B), (c)(1)(ii); 45 C.F.R.
the organizations complicit in the scheme in this way.
religious liberty.” Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2767, slip op.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(b)(1).
interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).
the form) or else pay significant monetary penalties.
access to contraception for the organizations’ employees.
Security Division, 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981); Sherbert v.
Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403-04 (1963).
That is precisely what has happened here.
for not providing contraceptive coverage); Wisconsin v.
of religion. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2775-76, 2779, slip op.
Amendment and Related Statutes 1060 (5th ed. 2014).
or her religious beliefs. For example, in the recent Holt v.
Here, the situation is only slightly more complicated.
abortifacient coverage. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Br. 1.
we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others.
1152 (10th Cir. 2013) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
2777-79, slip op. at 29 n.28, 35-38; see also Thomas, 450 U.S.
claimant’s ability to prevail under RFRA.
provided in subsection (b) of this section.”) (emphasis added).
into the sincerity of religious claims. Id. at 2774 nn.28-29, slip op.
Government may be substantially burdening someone’s religion.
(1961) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
intervening decisions by individual covered employees.
Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2777, slip op. at 35.
by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C.
definition set forth in § 2000cc-5 into RFRA).
an honest conviction. Cf. Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S.
beliefs is beyond refute.”); id. at 2812, slip op. at 11.
religion. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. at 2759, slip op. at 2.
exercise.” Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v.
1339, 1348 (11th Cir. 2014) (Pryor, J., specially concurring).
substantially burden plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.
religious organizations around the country.
largely echoes Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Wheaton College.
(Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted).
exercise of religion. But so does Y – submitting the form.
religious beliefs was paying Social Security taxes.
fully come to grips with that critical point, in my view.
exercise of religion. So it is in this case.
that we now must move on to the second and third prongs.
history book lists the Government’s compelling interests.
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 126-27 (1959); Sweezy v.
the interest must be “of the highest order.” Wisconsin v.
Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, slip op. at 41 (2014).
preventing discrimination against third parties. See Gillette v.
United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461-63 (1971); Hernandez v.
contraception for women employees. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.
2799-2801, slip op. at 23-27 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); cf.
facilitating access to contraception. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct.
2799-2801, slip op. at 23-27 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
now about 40% of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C.
demanding.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct.
2751, 2780, slip op. at 40 (2014).
to help thread the needle between two conflicting principles.
abortifacients and result in the destruction of embryos.
Related Statutes 986 (5th ed. 2014).
objection to the Department of Health and Human Services.”).
accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries.” Cutter v.
means of advancing that interest.” Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct.
interests.” Id. at 2787, slip op. at 4 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
the Act.” Wheaton College, 134 S. Ct. at 2807, slip op. at 1-2.
would result from the accommodation.”).
over a detailed and forceful dissent.
864, slip op. at 11 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
coverage to which they object as a matter of religious belief.

References: § 2590
 v. 
 v.

 § 2000
 § 2000
 v.

 v.

 v.

 § 2000
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.