This term, the court sent a similar case brought by religious nonprofits back down to the lower court.
Advertisement
Last September, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision to dismiss such lawsuits by the city against Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup Inc.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the refusal to hear the case.
The Supreme Court will not review Washington state’s requirement that pharmacies dispense emergency contraceptives to women, prompting a complaint from conservative justices that it was an “ominous sign” for religious liberty.
“For over 40 years, Congress and all 50 states have protected the right of pharmacists, doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to step aside when asked to participate in what they consider to be an abortion”, the pharmacy’s petition seeking Supreme Court review said. “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern”, he said.
In his dissent, Alito notes how the Supreme Court in 1993 struck down a law that appeared neutral on its face toward religion, because the Court discovered that the intent of local lawmakers was to discriminate against members of a little-known religion, Santeria.
Even before the Supreme Court issued a decision on whether it would take the case, the pharmacists’ case already had gathered 14 friend of the court briefs from supportive groups, groups supportive of the including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Stormans and two other pro-life-owned private pharmacies sued, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Supreme Court has agreed to referee a dispute about an odd piece of USA citizenship law that treats men and women differently. Instead, they refer customers to one of many nearby pharmacies that sell those drugs.
“We are disappointed that the high court didn’t take this case and uphold the (federal district) trial court’s finding”, she added.
Advertisement
The plaintiffs in the case, the Stormans family, sought to challenge Washington State regulation mandating that a pharmacy may not “refuse to deliver a drug or device to a patient because its owner objects to delivery on religious, moral or other personal grounds”. Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception, that court said.
