1Because it was filed first of the seven filed actions now before the Court, the official name of the case will beZubik v. Burwell, which was previously styled asGeneva College v. Secretary United States HHS,778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015), before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 2Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014);see alsoDenise Visconti, Darren Nadel, and William Trachman,Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby,Opens Door to Religious Objections to Statutes Covering Employers, Littler Insight (July 7, 2014).3See26 C.F.R. §§ 54.9815-2713Aet seq.4 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a).542 U.S.C. §2000bb-1(b).6See Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. United States HHS, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16591 (8th Cir., Sept. 17, 2015).7Available at:http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/14-1418-et-al.-RFRA-Briefing-Proposal-Request-Letter.pdf.

10Id. at *29-30.11 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.12 494 U.S. 872 (1990).13 See, e.g., Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) ; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).14 521 U.S. 507 (1997).15 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a).16 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1(b).17 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4505, at *41-42.18 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4505, at * 155 (Breyer, J. and Kagan, J. dissenting).19 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4505, at *131-33 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).20 Id. at *63-65, 70-71.21 Id.

The Church of the Celestial Heart is a California nonprofit religious corporation seeks to import and use a sacramental tea. It so happens that this tea, which is also called Daime or ayahuasca, carries trace amounts of a Schedule I chemical. After the government seized some of the Church's tea, the Church sought relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c), 2000bb(4).The Church of The Celestial Heart v. Garland,2024 WL 99808 (E.D. Jan. 9, 2024).The defendants (the U.S. Attorney General, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security) argued that the Church could not complain of harm because the Church's tea was seized a month before the Church was incorporated. However, the Church existed before its incorporation as a California unincorporated association. As I discussed in this post, Sections 5121, 7121, and 9121 of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law allow existing unincorporated association to change its status to that of a corporation. Thus, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone rejected the defendants' argument.[View source.]

Id. at 31, 429.Plaintiffs asserted that these requirements violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which forbids the government to "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless the burden (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b).The ACA's prohibition against discriminatory practices implicates ERISA because many employers use federally funded third party administrators (TPAs) to administer their group benefits plans.

The Court relied primarily on RFRA’s text allowing injured parties to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c). The Court first concluded that injured parties can sue government officials in their personal capacities, because RFRA defines “government” to include an “official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States.”

It also allows a person whose exercise of religion has been unlawfully burdened to “obtain appropriate relief against a government.” 42 U.S.C. §2000bb–1(c). Here, respondents are three practicing Muslims who claim FBI agents placed them on the No Fly List in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants against their religious communities.

Religious Liberties Under the CARES ActThe SBA has provided clarification regarding the potential impact on religious liberties for Nonprofit Organizations that are organized to carry out tax-exempt religious purposes. Such Nonprofit Organizations that intend to apply for financial relief under the PPP may find comfort in the following statement issued by the SBA in section 5 of the Interim Final Rule:All loans guaranteed by the SBA pursuant to the CARES Act will be made consistent with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory protections for religious liberty, including the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 and bb-3, and SBA regulation at 13 C.F.R. 113.3-1h, which provides:“Nothing in [SBA nondiscrimination regulations] shall apply to a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society with respect to the membership or the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution or society of its religious activities.”The SBA intends to provide additional guidance regarding the religious liberty protections afforded under the PPP.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) prohibits the government from substantially burdening an individual’s exercise of religion unless the burden (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. The funeral home argued that continuing to employ Stephens during her transition would distract grieving families and inhibit the funeral home’s ability to carry out the religious exercise of serving its customers.

The Adorers sued FERC under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 (“RFRA”). They alleged that the pipeline project would interfere with their ability to use their land according to their religious beliefs, since the drilling and extraction of natural gas would cause methane leakage that would contribute to and accelerate global warming.

But despite receiving notice of the proposed project as the NGA requires, the Adorers never proceeded before FERC. Instead, they filed suit in the District Court under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1 (“RFRA”), more than five months after FERC issued the certificate to Transco.FERC and Transco moved to dismiss the Adorers’ RFRA complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in light of the NGA”s specific requirements regarding judicial review. The District Court granted that motion.