Religious objections to the health reform law are continuing in the courts, with the reemergence of a constitutional challenge to the reform law (the second such challenge that might reach the U.S. Supreme Court).
Gov’t Drops Opposition
In this brief, the Obama administration told the U.S. Supreme Court it will not try to block Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., from seeking legal remedies to its religious objection to the health reform law’s coverage mandates. The university recently petitioned the High Court for a rehearing of its case.
Liberty University argues that its religious objections to the law were not vacated in the Supreme Court’s NFIB v. Sebelius (132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012)) opinion upholding the individual and employer mandates.
Liberty’s argument against the mandates as improper expansion of Congress’ commerce-regulating powers were stricken in the NFIB decision, but Liberty’s arguments that they violated constitutional provisions on religious freedom and due process were never heard.
University’s Case Reemerges
Filing its case on March 23, 2010, Liberty challenged first the individual and employer mandates to buy (for self) or offer (to employees) health coverage, or pay a penalty. It argued that those mandates improperly expanded the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
But it also claimed the law violated the school’s religious rights because funds from mandatory insurance payments would be used to cover abortions. The university’s claims religious rights arguments were based on the First Amendment, protecting free exercise of religion, and the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
In November 2010, the district court dismissed both claims on the merits, in Liberty University v. Geithner, 2010 WL 4860299 (W.D. Va., Nov. 30, 2010). Then the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shot down the school’s appeal to that outcome, but it based that on the Anti-Injunction Act, holding that Liberty’s action could not proceed until the penalties started being assessed, in Liberty University v. Geithner, 671 F.3d 391 (4th Cir., Sept. 8, 2011).
The university petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing to reverse the appeals court’s Anti-Injunction block on the case, and arguing against the two mandates as an improper expansion of the constitution’s commerce-regulating powers. But it lacked arguments against abortion funding as violating free religious exercise.
In its June 28, 2012, landmark decision on NFIB, the Supreme Court ruled (1) that a pre-enforcement challenge to the employer and individual mandates was not barred under the Anti-Injunction Act; but in spite of that (2) the coverage mandate portions of the law were a legitimate use of Congress’ taxation authority.
Liberty’s petition was seen as resolved after the Supreme Court issued its decision, and the High Court dismissed all pending cases against the law, and denied Liberty’s petition for certiorari on the day after the NFIB decision.
Liberty Resubmits Complaint
In an amended petition to the Supreme Court submitted July 23, Liberty asked it to reverse its denial of certiorari, contending that the university’s allegations should get a new hearing, because the case was not barred under the Anti-Injunction Act (Liberty University v. Geithner, 2012 WL 3027174 (U.S., July 23, 2012)).
The government in its Oct. 31 brief said it agreed that the appeals court’s anti-injunction ruling had been overturned and that the First and Fifth Amendment arguments had not been covered in the June 2012 ruling. And because of that, the government said it will not oppose the university’s moves to pursue the case.
This case could reach the Supreme Court, making it the second challenge to the reform law to be ruled on by that body.