Federal Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Abortion and Transgender Mandates for Catholic Employers

A federal judge has dealt a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce abortion and transgender mandates on Catholic employers, citing religious freedom concerns.

At a Glance

North Dakota federal judge blocks Biden administration’s abortion and transgender mandates for Catholic employers
Ruling protects over 1,300 Catholic employers and 7,100 parishes from complying with mandates they believe violate their religious principles
Judge determines mandates likely violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Decision highlights tension between religious liberty and federal anti-discrimination efforts

Federal Judge Halts Controversial Mandates

U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor has granted a preliminary injunction against Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rules under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and Title VII. This ruling affects over 8,000 Catholic employers, including the Catholic Benefits Association and Diocese of Bismarck, preventing the enforcement of regulations that would require accommodation for abortions, certain fertility treatments, and transgender identity recognition.

US judge backs Catholic employers who challenged abortion regulation https://t.co/XmtOwBLLJq pic.twitter.com/NQfBCxYEJz

— Reuters (@Reuters) September 24, 2024

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, passed in December 2022, is at the center of this legal battle. Judge Traynor determined that the mandates likely violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that the rule forced religious employers to choose between their beliefs and compliance, causing “irreparable” harm.

Implications for Catholic Employers

The ruling specifically bars the EEOC from taking action against the Catholic Benefits Association’s members for refusing to use preferred pronouns or allow bathroom use consistent with transgender employees’ gender identity. This decision protects a significant number of Catholic institutions, including 1,380 Catholic employers and 7,100 Catholic parishes.

“in a manner that would require them to speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith.” the judge wrote.

Judge Traynor emphasized the need for religious conscience protections for Catholic employers, criticizing the Biden administration for actions he deemed unconstitutional regarding religious freedom. The EEOC rule includes an exemption for religious employers, but Traynor found it insufficient to protect religious liberties.

Judge lets over 8,000 Catholic employers deny worker protections for abortion and fertility care https://t.co/AicvvA0h3B

— KSAT 12 (@ksatnews) September 25, 2024

Broader Legal Context

This decision is part of a series of lawsuits challenging the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act nationwide. A federal judge in Louisiana previously blocked enforcement of the rule against Louisiana, Mississippi, and a Catholic bishops’ group. Additionally, a separate challenge by 17 Republican-led states is expected to be heard by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age,” Traynor wrote. “One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.”

The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between religious freedoms and federal anti-discrimination mandates in the workplace. While supporters of the decision hail it as a victory for religious liberty, critics argue that it could discourage pregnant workers from exercising their rights and sets a concerning precedent for using religion to challenge civil rights protections.

Conclusion

As the legal battle continues, the implications of this ruling extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. It highlights the complex balance between protecting religious freedoms and ensuring workplace equality, a debate that is likely to persist as society grapples with evolving social norms and long-held religious beliefs. The outcome of this case and similar challenges across the country will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of employment law and religious accommodations in the United States.