Supreme Court: Liberals vs. Nuns- Who Won?

The Supreme Court just issued a shocking opinion that is a major victory for religious liberty. As the ACLJ's Jay Sekulow notes:

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ordered lower courts to help the Little Sisters of the Poor and other religious organizations work out a compromise with the Obama Administration.

This is a significant victory for religious freedom.

From the very beginning, we have been adamant that the Obama Administration’s war against faith-based organizations squarely put religious liberty at great risk. It would have been ideal for the high Court to step in today and rule on the merits of the case. But its decision to instead vacate the troubling decisions in place by sending the cases back to lower courts for resolution amounts to a significant victory for religious freedom. We’re confident that, with the guidance offered by the high Court, a solution will be found to protect the religious freedom of these organizations.

This is a major victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor. The case falls specifically within the parameters of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed in the wake of the controversial Oregon v. Smith case, meant to protect religious groups burdened by government regulations that violate their precepts. RFRA imposes a test for deciding whether or not a law burdens religious freedom. The law states that the government may only burden religious freedom if there is 1) a compelling reason to do so and they're using the 2) least restrictive means possible to further that compelling interest.

Before Antonin Scalia's untimely death, this case was a slam dunk. Writing at The Week, Michael Brendan Dougherty explained:

Luckily for the Sisters, in the majority opinion of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the courts should not make any judgment on whether the religious convictions at issue are truly reasonable. Instead, they judge whether the government's means for achieving its ends are truly the least restrictive to the religious conscience.

Of course there are less restrictive means of making contraception available than recruiting a group of hospice nuns and their insurance company as the intermediary. The government could extend its complete exemption for churches to religiously affiliated non-profits. Or the government could waive its form, and design one in which insurers or plan managers simply inform the government which users are under plans without these services, allowing the government to provide them afterward.

After Scalia's death, victory seemed in doubt. That's why it can't be overstated how much this victory is a massive loss for the Obama Administration. The radical notion that they could turn "provision of birth control" into a state interest so compelling that Christians who rejected the idea would be forced to be complicit in it is dead, for now. That is nothing short of a miracle.

But this should also serve as a reminder to conservatives. We are one Supreme Court Justice away from this going in a completely different direction. This case, and cases like it, are going to be in front of the Supreme Court again, and soon. That's why it is absolutely imperative that we demand the appointment of strict, conservative jurists from whomever leads us next.

Source: AAN