Five years ago, I set out to try my hand at blogging about legal and related issues that religious groups face. I sought to help faith communities improve their grasp of the rules that govern them, organize themselves, and feel comfortable contacting a lawyer for help. The last five years have brought some very interesting developments at the intersection of law and religion, and the next five promise even more. I’ve enjoyed blogging, though I have not been as regular as I would like to be. I aim to change that in the coming months. I’ve also created some graphics to help you know right away that what you’re seeing is Law Meets Gospel. To mark the fifth birthday of this effort, below are five important developments in the law that affect faith communities. And then some other big news … .
Here are five important developments in the legal issues faith communities must deal with since November 7, 2011:
- Challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The top story is one that is still developing. In the aftermath of the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services implemented regulations requiring employers to provide free insurance coverage for contraceptives. Many religious groups object to the use of at least certain types of contraceptives. Employers with this objection have challenged both the coverage requirement and the government’s handling of objectors, some of whom assert that their cooperation is paramount to participating in unethical behavior. Perhaps the most widely known development is the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Law Meets Gospel provided an overview of the decision here. The important holding means that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects corporate as well as individual free exercise, even when a religious corporation is organized for for-profit purposes. Since then, nonprofit religious employers who are not “churches,” such as hospitals, universities, and similar religious not-for-profits, have challenged the law. The Supreme Court in March 2016 vacated lower courts’ decisions and directed the government and the employers to resolve the dispute outside the court system, giving much less guidance than watchers expected or wanted. The case is covered at SCOTUSblog here. These objections will likely be the subject of further litigation.
- The Ministerial Exception. Just as important but less controversial was the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hosanna-Tabor confirmed that the First Amendment protects a religious institution’s selection of religious leaders, even in the face of antidiscrimination laws. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a unanimous court, concluding that a teacher at the church’s school could not sue for wrongful dismissal under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the church considered her and treated her as a religious leader. Law Meets Gospel covered later court cases that dealt with similar issues here and here.
- Law prohibiting church’s sign struck down. A church successfully challenged a local ordinance that imposed more strict restrictions on signs directing the public to a nonprofit’s event than on signs conveying other messages as content-based regulations of speech in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona. You can review SCOTUSblog’s coverage here.
- Objections to protections for LGBT people. Around the country, several cases are challenging state and local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and do not include exceptions based on religious conviction. The Supreme Court will consider whether to hear a challenge to Colorado’s public-accommodations law that has been applied to compel a baker to make cakes for same-sex weddings. Follow the case at SCOTUSblog here. Law Meets Gospel tweeted an interesting story profiling the baker involved in the case as well as a similarly situated Washington florist and Kentucky t-shirt maker here.
- Renewed debate about Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. After the U.S. Supreme Court held that Washington could dismiss Native American state employees for their ritual use of peyote, Congress passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to bolster religious freedom. After the act was held not to apply to states, Congress filled in some of the gaps, but it did not have constitutional authority over much of the states’ activities. Over time, states enacted state versions of RFRA. After many years of relative inactivity, states began to adopt RFRAs again in response to the Supreme Court’s holding that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected. Some of these state RFRAs expressly focused on this issue, while others, including Indiana’s, used broad language similar to the federal statute. The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has a State RFRA bill tracker, which breaks the states up into those considering RFRA bills in 2016, those considering amendments in 2016, and those with RFRA laws enacted through 2016, here. Meanwhile, the debate about these state laws, Hobby Lobby, and other cases brought mostly by conservative Christians have caused some—including the ACLU—to reconsider the federal RFRA itself.
Law Meets Gospel the Podcast is coming! The “big news” teased above is that I’m going to try my hand at my favorite medium: podcasting. I’ll have more news about this later, but I’ve lined up my first guests. The format will be ten to twenty minutes on any topic, and the episodes will be tips from me intermixed with episodes with guests. Some of these will include a religious leader in conversation with me and another lawyer focusing on a legal issue. If you have recommendations for lawyers or religious leaders who would be good conversation partners, please let me know at questions@lawmeetsgospel.com.
Have a question about legal issues affecting religious organizations? Let me know at questions@lawmeetsgospel.com or @LawMeetsGospel.