The Dialog

By Patricia Zapor

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court Jan. 7 let stand a lower court order allowing government funding of research involving certain embryonic stem-cell lines.

The court also scheduled oral arguments for March in two cases over state laws on same-sex marriage.

A microscopic view shows a colony of human embryonic stem cells (light blue) growing on fibroblasts (dark blue) in this photo released to Reuters by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. (CNS file)

Without comment, the court let stand an August ruling by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which dismissed a lawsuit by two scientists who said the funding policy inhibits their chance of getting government grants for their research on adult stem cells, and argued that violates another law.

Under a 2009 policy, the government began allowing federal funding of research on human embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization but were no longer needed for that purpose. Under a previous policy, government funding was allowed on stem cells derived from a handful of lines that existed to that point.

The two scientists, Dr. James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, sought to block the expansion, arguing that it was barred under a 1996 law, known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, that prohibits use of federal funds for “the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes” or “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero.”

In his August ruling, Chief Judge David B. Sentelle of the D.C. Circuit, said the National Institutes of Health’s interpretation of the Dickey-Wicker amendment was “reasonable” in permitting funding of embryonic stem-cell research using cells derived using private funds.

Sentelle said the funding guidelines promulgated by NIH in 2009 correctly and legally allowed funding on stem cells derived from embryos created for artificial insemination and donated to scientists after the parents decided to discard them.

The Catholic Church opposes stem-cell research that destroys human embryos. The same objections do not arise over research using adult stem-cell lines, because these are cells taken from anyone after birth.

The court the same day announced that oral arguments would be heard on consecutive days in March in cases over same-sex marriage laws. On March 26, the court will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which considers California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage.

On March 27, it will take up United States v. Windsor, which weighs the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

By Patricia Zapor

Catholic News Service

The Supreme Court will take up in the spring two cases over the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

In orders issued Dec. 7, the court agreed to hear a case over California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, and one out of New York over the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines a marriage as being between one man and one woman.

A groom and bride hold hands on their wedding day. The U.S. Supreme Court announced Dec. 7 that it will hear two cases challenging federal and a state laws that define marriage as a union of a man and a woman. (CNS file photo/Jon L. Hendricks)

The cases likely will be on the court’s calendar for argument in March, with a ruling before the end of the term in late June.

After weeks of court-watching when the petitions for review of more than half a dozen cases over the same-sex marriage were on the justices’ list for consideration, the orders Dec. 7 suggested the justices worked at covering multiple bases in what they granted, noted court-watchers at the Supreme Court blog, SCOTUSblog.

The orders focused on two issues: how marriage is defined and whether same-sex couples who are legally married are entitled to the same kind of spousal benefits as heterosexual spouses.

In each case, the court noted that it would first consider whether the parties involved have legal standing, meaning the court could toss out both cases on the basis of who brought the lawsuits and not actually address the underlying constitutional issues at all. If that happened, the court could take up other cases to get to the constitutionality.

The orders also asked the parties in the New York case to first help the justices consider whether the key part of DOMA even holds, because the federal government has said it is not constitutional and has declined to defend it.

DOMA, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, was a reaction to Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruling in 1993 that the state had to show a compelling interest to prohibit same-sex marriage, leading to concerns that a subsequent challenge would make the practice legal. DOMA defines marriage as only between one man and one woman for the purposes of the federal government, including for Social Security benefits, federal programs and federal estate and income taxes.

Although subsequent administrations supported DOMA in court, early in 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the agency would no longer defend the law. Holder said that after review of recommendations including his own, President Barack Obama had concluded that DOMA’s definition of marriage as applied to same-sex couples fails to hold up to constitutional scrutiny.

Saying he prayed that the court would uphold the traditional definition of marriage, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the court’s decision to take the cases is a “significant moment for our nation.”

In a Dec. 7 statement, Archbishop Cordileone said traditional marriage between one man and one woman “is as old as humanity” and is the foundation of a just society because it protects children, “the most vulnerable among us.”

Nine states and the District of Columbia allow or will soon begin allowing same-sex marriage. That includes, Maryland, Maine and Washington, which passed laws approving it in November’s election, while Minnesota voters defeated a referendum seeking to ban it. Thirty-one states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Many of the cases the court has been asked to hear revolve around the question of employee or survivor benefits for spouses who married in states where same-sex marriage is permitted. Other challenges relate to bankruptcy, immigration and military benefits.

The cases the court accepted are: Hollingsworth v. Perry, which asks whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as Prop. 8 does; and Windsor v. United States, in which a New York woman sued over having to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her wife. If she had been married to a man, she would have been exempt from the taxes.

By Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Nov. 26 for a federal appeals court to take up a Christian college’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act, reopening one of several lawsuits filed by religious and other groups who oppose elements of the law.

The court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the argument of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., that the health care law infringes on the Christian school’s religious freedom. The court had rejected an earlier challenge by the university, made prior to the Supreme Court’s June ruling upholding the health care law. The university appealed again, asking for its challenge to be considered in light of the June Supreme Court ruling.

The order came within weeks of separate rulings by federal courts in Washington and Oklahoma that addressed challenges to a Department of Health and Human Services mandate under the Affordable Care Act, which requires employers to include coverage for contraceptives in employee health insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court justices have ordered a Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the argument of Liberty University in Lynchburg,Va.,  that the health care law infringes on the Christian school’s religious freedom.  (CNS photo/Jim Lo Scalzo, Reuters)

On Nov. 16, a Washington-based federal judge granted a temporary injunction against enforcement of the contraceptive mandate in a suit brought by an Illinois-based Christian publisher.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ruled that Tyndale House Publishers, which produces Bibles and various Christian publications, did not have to comply with the new mandate while the group’s lawsuit against it moves forward. The mandate “affirmatively compels” the company to violate its religious beliefs, he said.

Matthew Bowman of Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the Carol Springs, Ill., company, said in a statement that the judge’s ruling was the right one and that Bible publishers “should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.”

Tyndale objects to the HHS requirement that most religious employers provide free coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and some abortion-inducing drugs free, saying it violates the company’s moral convictions.

In another lawsuit against the mandate, a federal judge in Oklahoma City Nov. 20 denied a request for an injunction against the mandate by the Christian-owned business Hobby Lobby, saying the arts-and-crafts stores must cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance policies even though the company argued that some are abortion-inducing drugs.

A day later lawyers for Hobby Lobby appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, asking for “emergency relief” from fines of more than $1 million a day the company says it will face if it doesn’t comply with mandate.

The family-owned company said in a statement it has no moral objection to “the use of preventive contraceptives” and will continue to cover those for employees.

The HHS mandate has a narrow exemption that applies only to those religious institutions that seek to inculcate their religious values and primarily employ and serve people of their own faith. The mandate does not include a conscience clause for employers who object to such coverage on moral grounds.

Tyndale House, which has 260 employees, does not meet the religious exemption even though it publishes Bibles and other Christian materials. It is primarily owned by the nonprofit Tyndale House Foundation, which provides grants to help meet the physical and spiritual needs of people around the world.

In his ruling, Walton, of the District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote that the contraceptive mandate “affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance.”

The judge acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question “is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests.”

He also ordered the parties to appear at an undetermined date for arguments on whether to make the injunction permanent.

Alliance Defending Freedom, formerly the Alliance Defense Fund, is a Christian-based organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that provides legal defense against attacks on religious freedom. The group represented Hercules Industries in Colorado, a Catholic-owned company that provides heating, ventilation and air-conditioning. In July, Hercules Industries was granted a temporary injunction from the HHS contraceptive mandate by a federal judge.

In the Hobby Lobby suit, Judge Joe Heaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, rejected both First Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims by the store owners, saying that “secular, for-profit corporations do not have free exercise rights.”

Hobby Lobby, based in Oklahoma City, has more than 500 retail stores in 41 states. Its business practices include being closed on Sundays and hiring company chaplains to minister to employees.

“We have always operated our company in a manner consistent with biblical principles, including integrity and service to others,” said David Green, an evangelical Christian who is founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby. “We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”

Hobby Lobby is the largest company to file suit against the HHS mandate.

About 50 Catholic dioceses, universities and church entities throughout the U.S. have filed lawsuits against the mandate.

Oral arguments in the suit brought by the Benedictine-run Belmont Abbey College in Charlotte, N.C., are scheduled to be heard Dec. 14 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Nov. 26 order by the Supreme Court is in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that most individuals obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. The case also challenges a provision requiring most employers to provide health insurance to their staff.

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 28 decision upholding the health reform law makes it even more urgent for Congress to act to fix the law’s “fundamental flaws” on abortion funding, conscience protection and immigrants’ access to health care, the U.S. bishops said.

The court found that although the individual mandate in the 2010 health reform law does not pass constitutional muster under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it can be upheld as an acceptable exercise of Congress’ taxing powers. Read more »

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court, in a mixed opinion with several dissents, affirmed the section of an Arizona immigration law that requires state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of detainees who they suspect are in the country illegally.

But the court threw out other parts of the law, called S.B. 1070, as an infringement on the powers of the federal government.

Read more »

By Patricia Zapor

Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Jan. 11 upheld the idea that a “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws means the church can’t be sued for firing an employee who the church classified as a minister.

For the first time, the court held that such an exception to federal employment laws exists. The unanimous opinion reversed a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read more »