Subscribe to RSS - Ongoing

Roman Catholic Diocese of Atlanta v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations.

Eternal Word Television Network v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations.

East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations.

Dordt College v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations. Read more

Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Burwell

As part of the Affordable Care Act's implementing regulations, group health plans are required to include coverage for various forms of preventative care, including all FDA-approved methods of contraception. Houses of worship are exempt from these requirements, and the Department of Health and Human Services later created a broader accommodation for certain nonprofit organizations.

Latta v. Otter

In 2006, Idaho amended its state constitution to specify that “[a] marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” In hearings before the state legislature, proponents of the ban urged its placement on the ballot because “marriage is God given” and “[n]ormalcy is a man and a woman; God made us that way.” The campaign urging the ban’s adoption was similarly religious in nature.
 
In 2013, four same-sex couples challenged Idaho’s marriage ban in federal court.

DeLeon v. Perry

Texas amended its state constitution in 2005 to limit the definition of marriage to “one man and one woman,” forbidding the recognition of any other “legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Governor Rick Perry approved the amendment for inclusion on the ballot at a ceremony hosted by Calvary Christian Academy, to which he had invited “pro-family Christian friends.” Support for the amendment came primarily from religious organizations, and campaign materials justified it by reference to “God’s Design.”
 
In 2013, two same-sex couples filed a federal lawsuit chal

Conde-Vidal v. Rius-Armendariz

In 1999, Puerto Rico enacted a statute defining marriage as limited to a man and woman, and forbidding recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The law was enacted after its sponsors received a petition from religious groups and a prominent evangelist. Much of the support for the law came couched in religious rhetoric. Some supporters of the bill went so far as to quote the Bible for the proposition that gay people are “worthy of death.”
 
In 2014, several same-sex couples challenged Puerto Rico’s marriage ban.

Brenner v. Armstrong

In 2008, Florida amended its state constitution to specify that marriage “is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and that “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.” The amendment’s supporters grounded their support for the law in theological concerns.

Ark Encounter v. Stewart

Since 2010, we have been monitoring Kentucky’s involvement with Ark Encounter, a proposed theme park that will feature a 510-foot replica of Noah’s Ark.

Pages