The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Oregon Right to Life (ORTL) in its legal battle over the state’s Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA). The court reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss ORTL’s complaint, effectively giving the organization a win in the early stages of the case. The heart of the dispute lies in whether ORTL, an advocacy group with pro-life views, should be required to provide abortion and contraception coverage to its employees under RHEA.
The Core of the Case
The RHEA mandates that most health insurance plans in Oregon cover abortion and contraception. However, it includes exemptions for certain religious organizations. ORTL argues that the RHEA, as applied, violates its First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. They contend that their sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion should exempt them from this coverage requirement.
The District Court’s Decision and the Appeal
The initial ruling by the District Court denied ORTL a preliminary injunction and dismissed their complaint. The court found that there was “doubt” about whether ORTL’s beliefs about abortion were “genuinely religious,” and that RHEA was a neutral, generally applicable law, subject only to a rational basis review, which it met.
ORTL appealed, arguing that its beliefs are religiously motivated and that the exemptions in RHEA, which favor some religious organizations over others, render the law neither “neutral” nor “generally applicable.”
The Appeals Court’s Reasoning
The Ninth Circuit agreed with ORTL that its beliefs are religious and sincerely held. The court pointed to significant evidence presented by ORTL, including statements in its governing documents and public declarations, to support its claim of religious motivation. The court found that the District Court erred in failing to conclude, at the motion to dismiss stage, that ORTL’s opposition to abortion is genuinely religious.
Based on a recent Supreme Court decision, *Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission* (2025), the Ninth Circuit decided to send the case back to the District Court. This decision from the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of exemptions granted to some religiously motivated organizations but not others. The Ninth Circuit wants the District Court to re-evaluate whether RHEA’s application to ORTL violates the First Amendment, in light of the *Catholic Charities* ruling.
The Concurring Opinion
Judge VanDyke, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the majority’s assessment of ORTL’s religious motivation. He further argued that the *Catholic Charities* decision means RHEA should be subject to strict scrutiny because it discriminates based on religious choices and between religions. Judge VanDyke would have gone further, directing the District Court to issue a preliminary injunction in favor of ORTL.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Schroeder dissented, arguing that the District Court’s dismissal should be upheld. She emphasized that ORTL has never sought to be considered a religious employer under RHEA and does not consider itself to be one. Judge Schroeder believes that, because of this, the case is unlike *Catholic Charities*, and remanding the case for further consideration of the Supreme Court precedent would be unnecessary.
Key Issues and Arguments
* Religious Beliefs: The central question is whether ORTL’s opposition to abortion is based on genuinely religious beliefs. The court found that the evidence presented by ORTL supported this claim.
* Neutrality of the Law: ORTL argues that RHEA is not neutral because it grants exemptions to some religious organizations but not to others. The court’s decision to remand the case suggests it agrees that this may be a violation of the First Amendment.
* The *Catholic Charities* Decision: This Supreme Court case is crucial. It addressed the constitutional significance of religious exemptions and potentially sets a precedent for how the Ninth Circuit should view this case.
* The Scope of Exemptions: The dissent highlights that ORTL has not claimed to be a religious employer, which impacts how the court should apply the law.
What Happens Next?
The case returns to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Court will need to apply the *Catholic Charities* decision to the facts of this case. This could involve determining whether RHEA’s application to ORTL violates the First Amendment. The outcome of these further proceedings could have significant implications for religious freedom and healthcare access in Oregon.