A Christian group that sued the federal government cannot be forced to perform gender transition surgeries and also does not have to cover the procedures for employees, according to a new ruling.
“If CEA had to comply with these mandates, its members would have to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs which is an impermissible exercise under the First Amendment and RFRA,” Judge Traynor said, referring to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The RFRA bars agencies from substantially burdening exercise of religion, unless the agencies show that the burden “furthers a compelling governmental interest and ”is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
One of the mandates is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The commission says the prohibition against employers discriminating on the basis of sex includes discriminating against an employee’s gender identity, and requires employers to pay for and provide gender transition surgeries and other treatment.
In the other mandate, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says that Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act bars discrimination over gender identity and requires healthcare providers to, among other actions, remove the breasts of women who claim they’re men.
CEA members cannot comply with the mandates “without violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs,” a filing from the group stated. It said the members “believe and teach that God’s creation of individuals as two, distinct biological sexes of male and female, is immutable, reflects the image and likeness of God, and is complementary to each other” and view gender surgery as “contrary to Christian values.”
Government lawyers argued that neither of the agencies has taken action against employers that do not comply with the mandates over religious objections and that the mandates do not substantially burden CEA.
“CEA does not contend or provide evidence that any of its members because of the alleged EEOC and HHS mandates, are currently violating their religious convictions by offering insurance coverage for gender transition services or by performing gender transition services,” one government filing stated. “Nor does CEA provide any evidence that EEOC or HHS has taken any action against any of CEA’s members to impose any adverse consequences on them (or, for that matter, any other religious employer or healthcare provider) for action in violation to the supposed ’mandates.'”
“Absent any evidence that EEOC or HHS are either preventing CEA’s members from exercising their religion or penalizing them for doing so, CEA essentially argues that its members may face a substantial burden at some unspecified time in the future,” the lawyers added later.
Judge Traynor rejected those arguments, noting that CEA and its members must comply with the mandates or face repercussions, such as fines.
“These fines and exposure to civil liability are obvious practical consequences. As a result, CEA’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the monetary penalties it faces for refusing to violate its beliefs,” he wrote. “Therefore, CEA has met its initial burden of showing the government substantially burdens a sincere religious exercise or belief.”
That finding means the government must show it is furthering a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means to do so.
The government has said the compelling interest is protecting the right of people who think they’re transgender, and protecting workers from discrimination, and that the mandates are the least restrictive means of protection.
“While protecting the right of transgender patients to access crucial healthcare and protecting workers from sex discrimination is certainly a compelling interest, the defendants here have done nothing more than identify a broadly formulated interest in an attempt to justify the general applicability of the government mandates,” the new ruling states. “Even if the court were to accept the defendants’ purpose for the mandates as a compelling interest, the defendants failed to provide any evidence showing this policy was the only feasible means to achieve its compelling interest.”
The judge blocked HHS and EEOC from enforcing the mandates against CEA, its present members, its future members, and “anyone acting in concert or participation with them, and their respective health plans and any insurers.”
“We are overjoyed our members will not have to choose between the biblically based employee benefits and quality healthcare they provide, and the threat of federal enforcement and massive costs for practicing their faith,” Christian Employers Alliance President Shannon Royce said in a statement.
“HHS is currently reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email.
EEOC declined to comment.
The White House did not return a query.
