Skip to comments.Breaking: Does the new religious exemption go far enough? [HHS blocked for EWTN]
Posted on 06/30/2014 12:44:28 PM PDT by topher
Opinion analysis: Does the new religious exemption go far enough? (UPDATED)
UPDATE 2:14 p.m. Acting swiftly in the wake of the Courts ruling on Monday, and relying directly upon that decision, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday blocked all enforcement of the mandate against an Alabama Catholic TV network, a non-profit entity. The concurring opinion of the Court of Appeals, written by Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., argued that the accommodation, discussed in the following post, is itself likely to be struck down.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
This is big. There a number of these suits out there by other organizations (Little Sisters of the Poor)
Of course it doesn’t go far enough! But it opens the door. Now time to strike down laws forcing companies to serve deviants
Hard Link only since PDF...
“Now time to strike down laws forcing companies to serve deviants”
It’s more about the definition of DEVIANT ... they will reference the redefining of IS !
Also, Belmont Abbey College.
Not yet far enough to reopen some of the Christian Owned Cake Shops without “celebrating all manner of diversity”, but we’re getting close.
Priests for Life (NYC)
Human Life International (Virginia)
American Life League (DC area, I think)
Most courts HAVE TO FOLLOW what the 11th circuit has ruled, so this should give IMMEDIATE relief to them...
“Most courts HAVE TO FOLLOW what the 11th circuit has ruled, so this should give IMMEDIATE relief to them... “
Eh, not really. One fed court is not bound by rulings of another fed court. The Supremes will choose to accept a case if there are conflicting rulings in the feds, for example, to clarify the law for all. The ruling of one fed court is not precedential for another fed court, but may be considered persuasive.
So at least one judge believes EWTN is likely to succeed on the merits. They do have a very interesting case because they already qualify for a religious exemption to the HHS mandate. Their issue is that by claiming the exemption, they trigger contraception coverage anyway when their benefits provider is then authorized to provide the coverage itself and seek reimbursement from the gov't.
Actually, no, they don’t.
Decisions of a federal court of appeals must be followed by all of the district courts located within that circuit. District courts outside that circuit, however, are not bound by such decisions. Further, one district court does not have to follow the rulings of any other district court. A court is bound only by the decisions of higher courts that have direct jurisdiction over it.
[I am quite ignorant about these affairs, as you can tell...]
I forgot about how their provider must provide these benefits if it is ruled they do not have to... I remember reading that...
No, it isn’t. See the paragraph about precedent in my post above.
Noted. I guess we will have to wait for these other cases to have either go to the Supreme Court, or have one case decide them all...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Typically, these cases may take years to percolate to the Supremes; however, recent actions by this treasonous admin and similarly corrupt lower court judges seem to be a catalyst to accelerate these cases to SCOTUS. We can only hope! :-)
While they are pursuing the lawsuit against Obamacare, EWTN does not have to pay the enormous fines for not providing abortion and abortafacients.
It is not a binding precedence. It could influence other courts as “persuasive precedent”.