Published April 14, 2025
On April 14, Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Eric Kniffin filed an amicus brief in Cedar Park Assemblies of God v. Kreidler. This case was brought by a Washington State church seeking relief from the State’s “Parity Act,” which requires all health plans to include access to elective abortions. The Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel recognized that Cedar Park sincerely believed that the law was forcing it to violate its religious convictions against facilitating abortions. Yet the court still dismissed the case, holding that Cedar Park did not have standing because “Washington’s conscientious-objection statute and regulations operate to make Plaintiff’s desired no-abortion health coverage possible.”
Kniffin’s amicus brief, filed in support of Cedar Park’s petition that the court rehear the case en banc, argues that the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, which cautioned courts against second-guessing a religious plaintiff’s sincere testimony about its religious convictions. Moreover, the brief argues that the panel’s arguments are nearly identical to those in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in the Hobby Lobby decision. Finally, the amicus brief addresses the panel’s claim that the Hobby Lobby decision isn’t relevant because that decision did not squarely address the plaintiffs’ standing.
From the brief:
The panel majority got it wrong. It claims that Cedar Park has incorrectly concluded that Washington’s abortion mandate burdens its religious exercise. But that directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s holding in Hobby Lobby that once a court finds that a religious employer has sincerely alleged that an insurance mandate burdens its religious exercise, its “narrow function” comes to an end.
… It is true that the Supreme Court did not explicitly hold that Hobby Lobby had standing. Yet that threshold issue, which is never wholly absent from the Court’s deliberations, was a central question surrounding the case. Both of the lower court decisions had explicitly discussed standing. … Moreover, all three of the parties’ briefs in Hobby Lobby included standing arguments.
… The Court should grant the petition and affirm that Cedar Park has standing to challenge Washington State’s abortion mandate.
Eric Kniffin is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he works on a range of initiatives to protect and strengthen religious liberty as part of EPPC’s Administrative State Accountability Project.
