Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 and 15-191 In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ MOST REVEREND DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. (additional captions listed on inside cover) __________ ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD, FIFTH, TENTH AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITS __________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS SUPPORTING PETITIONERS __________ TODD R. MCFARLAND GENE C. SCHAERR ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL Counsel of Record DWAYNE LESLIE Schaerr Law Group DIR. OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 332 Constitution Ave. NE General Conference of Washington, DC 20002 Seventh-day Adventists (202) 361-1061 12501 Old Columbia Pike [email protected] Silver Spring, MD 20904 ULESES C. HENDERSON, JR. E.R. LANIER GENERAL COUNSEL GENERAL COUNSEL The Church of God in Christ Orthodox Church in America 9301 Wilshire Blvd., 6850 N. Hempstead Turnpike Penthouse Syosset, NY 11791 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. __________ SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. __________ GENEVA COLLEGE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. __________ ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WASHINGTON, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. ___________ EAST TEXAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. __________ LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL. QUESTION PRESENTED This brief addresses the following question, which is central to this Court’s resolution of the narrower question on which review has been granted: Do the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment allow bureaucrats or judges, in de- termining whether a governmental mandate imposes a substantial burden on religion, to second-guess a re- ligious organization’s view of the religious implications of complying with that mandate? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED .................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................. iv INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI .................................................................. 1 STATEMENT ...................................................... 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 8 ARGUMENT ..................................................... 10 I. The Government’s Theory Would Justify Substantial Intrusions Into the Religious Liberty of All Houses of Worship, Denying Them Any Right To Have Religious Burdens Balanced Against Governmental Interests In A Wide Array Of Settings. ............................. 10 A. The Government’s justification for the intrusion here would logically extend to similar intrusions into the liberty of houses of worship regarding their healthcare programs. ............................. 10 B. The Government’s theory would allow automatic foreclosure of RFRA defenses by houses of worship to many other intrusions. .............................................. 15 C. By allowing bureaucrats and judges to second-guess religious judgments about complicity, the Government’s theory would create continuous social strife over religion. ................................................... 17 iii II. The Solution To These Problems Is A Test For “Substantial Burden” That Focuses On The Sincerity Of The Religious Belief And The Objective Seriousness Of The Penalty For Non-Compliance. ............................................ 19 A. Settled case law establishes that a regulation imposes a substantial burden whenever (a) the claimant sincerely believes that to act as the mandate directs substantially burdens her free exercise and (b) the penalty for non- compliance is objectively substantial. ... 19 B. The tests applied by the Seventh, Tenth and D.C. Circuits are contrary to precedent—and to the First Amendment—because they invite judges to assess the validity, consistency and/or reasonableness of religious beliefs. ....... 24 C. The sincerity requirement, the religious belief requirement, and the compelling interest test ensure that governments can pursue compelling interests while still respecting religious liberty. ................... 29 D. Robust religious liberty—not to mention the First Amendment—requires that the substantial burden test be applied in a way that avoids second-guessing religious judgments about a regulation’s religious consequences. ......................................... 33 CONCLUSION ................................................. 35 APPENDIX: Interests and Descriptions of Particular Amici................................................ 1a iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) .......................................... 26, 27 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct 2751 (2014) ...................................... passim Catholic Health Care System v. Burwell, 796 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2015).................................... 10 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ................................................ 11 Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987). ......................................... 20, 21 East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................. 11 Foothill Church v. Rouillard, no. 15-cv-02165 Dkt. #1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) ........................................ 13 Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989) ............................................... 23 Geneva College v. Sec’y Dept. of Health & Human Servs, 778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015).................................... 11 Grace Schools v. Burwell, 801 F.3d. 788 (7th Cir. 2015) ..................... 10, 25, 26 v Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (12003) .............................................. 32 Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) ................................................ 31 Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct 853 (2015) .................................... 18, 20, 23 Hosanna-Tabor v. E.E.O.C., 132 S.Ct 694 (2012). ................................... 20, 22, 34 Hunt v. Hunt, 648 A.2d 843 (Vt. 1994). ......................................... 33 Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. 2008) ....................................... 27 Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94 (1952) .................................................. 22 Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2015) ...................... passim Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 799 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2015) ...................... passim Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439 (1988). ......................................... 27, 28 vi Mason v. General Brown School Dist., 851 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1988)...................................... 31 Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (2013) .............................................. 14 Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) ................................................ 22 Priests for Life v. Dept. of Health and Human Ser- vices, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2015) ........................ 7 Priests for Life v. Dept. of Health and Human Servs, 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ........................ passim Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) .......................................... 22, 34 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) ................................................ 23 Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) .......................................... 20, 24 United States v. Kuch, 288 F.Supp 439 (D. D.C. 1968) ........................ 30, 31 United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) ................................................ 32 vii United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) ............................................... 31 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ................................................ 17 Walker v. Superior Court, 763 P.2d 852 (Cal. 1988) ........................................ 33 Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872) ................................. 22 Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970) ................................................ 18 Wheaton College v. Burwell, 791 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2015) .................................. 25 Wheaton College v. Burwell, No. 13A1284 (U.S. 2015) .......................................... 5 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972) ............................................ 24, 30 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) ................................................ 18 Statutes 8 U.S.C. § 1229a ......................................................... 16 20 U.S.C. § 1099b(c), (a)(4)(A). .................................. 21 26 U.S.C. § 4980D ...................................................... 23 viii 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a) .................................................. 4 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000bb et seq ................................................ passim Regulations 45 C.F.R. 147.131(a) .................................................... 4 78 Fed. Reg. 39,870 (July 2, 2013) .............................. 4 80 Fed. Reg, 54172 (Sep. 8, 2015) ............................. 13 EBSA Form 700 ......................................................... 12 Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. Amend. I ......................................... passim Other Authorities AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Public Funding for Abortion .................................. 13 Brief of Freedom from Religion Foundation in Burwell v.Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014) ... 32 John Norton, Vatican says 'sex-change' operation does not change person's gender, CATHOLIC NEWS SOURCE (Sep. 19, 2011) ........................................................ 14