Judge Jerry Smith is a deeply conservative judge. He once voted to allow a man to be executed despite the fact that the manâ€™s lawyer slept through much of his trial. Heâ€™s a reliable vote against abortion rights. And he once described feminists as a â€śgaggle of outcasts, misfits and rejects.â€ť
So when Judge Smith writes an opinion protecting womenâ€™s access to birth control, even when their employer objects to contraception on religious grounds, thatâ€™s a very big deal.
East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell is a consolidated batch of cases, handed down on Monday, involving religious employers who object to some or all forms of birth control. These employers are entitled to an accommodation exempting them from federal rules requiring them to offer birth control coverage to their employees. Most of them may invoke this accommodation simply by filling out a form or otherwise informing the federal government of their objection and naming the company that administers their employer health plan. At this point, the government works separately with that company to ensure that the religious employerâ€™s workers receive contraception coverage through a separate health plan.
Several lawsuits are working their way through the federal courts which raise the same legal argument at issue here. In essence, the employers claim that filling out the form that exempts them from having to provide birth control makes them complicit in their employeeâ€™s eventual decision to use contraception, and so the government cannot require them to fill out this form. So far, every single federal appeals court to consider this question has sided with the Obama administration and against religious employers who object to this accommodation.
Few judges on any court, however, are as conservative as Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit whose law clerks frequently go on to clerk for the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Smith makes short work of the claim that the fill-out-a-form accommodation burdens religious liberty.
The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides that the federal government â€śshall not substantially burden a personâ€™s exercise of religionâ€ť except in limited circumstances. Applying this language, Smith writes in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel that â€ś[t]he plaintiffs must show that the challenged regulations substantially burden their religious exercise, but they have not done so.â€ť
The crux of Smithâ€™s analysis is that the plaintiffs in these cases object to birth control, but nothing in the law requires these plaintiffs to do anything whatsoever involving birth control. Rather, their only obligation, if they do not wish to cover birth control, is to fill out a form or send a brief letter to the federal government â€” and neither of those things are contraception.
â€śAlthough the plaintiffs have identified several acts that offend their religious beliefs, the acts they are required to perform do not include providing or facilitating access to contraceptives,â€ť Smith explains. â€śInstead, the acts that violate their faith are those of third parties.â€ť Specifically, the plaintiffs object to the federal government working with an insurance administrator to provide contraception to certain workers. But the law does not â€śentitle them to block third parties from engaging in conduct with which they disagree.â€ť
Indeed, Smith writes, if the plaintiffs in these cases were to prevail, it could lead to absurd challenges to basic government functions. â€śPerhaps an applicant for Social Security disability benefits disapproves of working on Sundays and is unwilling to assist others in doing so,â€ť Smith explains. â€śHe could challenge a requirement that he use a form to apply because the Social Security Administration might process it on a Sunday. Or maybe a pacifist refuses to complete a form to indicate his beliefs because that information would enable the Selective Service to locate eligible draftees more quickly. The possibilities are endless, but we doubt Congress, in enacting RFRA, intended for them to be.â€ť
Smithâ€™s opinion, in other words, should offer a fair amount of comfort to women whose employers seek to cut off their access to birth control coverage. Though there are signs that at least some of the justices would like for the plaintiffs in cases like East Texas Baptist to prevail, the fact that a judge as conservative as Jerry Smith rejected their legal arguments suggests that a majority of the Supreme Court will not embrace these lawsuits.
This blog was originally posted on Think Progress on June 22, 2015. Reprinted with permission.
About the Author: The author’s name is Ian Millhiser. Ian Millhiser is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Editor of ThinkProgress Justice. He received a B.A. in Philosophy from Kenyon College and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University. Ian clerked for Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and has worked as an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Centerâ€™s Federal Rights Project, as Assistant Director for Communications with the American Constitution Society, and as a Teach For America teacher in the Mississippi Delta. His writings have appeared in a diversity of legal and mainstream publications, including the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, U.S. News and World Report, Slate, the Guardian, the American Prospect, the Yale Law and Policy Review and the Duke Law Journal. Ian’s first book is Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted.