At SCOTUS, Tension Over Pension
by Tony Perkins: The IRS has a lot of jobs -- but defining a church isn't one of them. Eight justices on the U.S. Supreme Court made that quite clear in a case that has a lot more to do with religious freedom than most people would guess. In several cases consolidated into Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, (which Neil Gorsuch abstained from, since he wasn't present for oral arguments), the justices agreed that the statute at issue required churches to be excused from the government burdens of a 1974 pension law.
The debate boiled down to two Catholic and one Lutheran hospital systems, which employees argued shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A handful of staffers took issue with the hospitals' faith ties, saying that it shouldn't let them off the hook from certain funding requirements. In their minds, the government (and specifically, the IRS) should be the one deciding who is and isn't religious enough to qualify. The bench unanimously disagreed, insisting that "a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization therefore qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it."
Interestingly enough, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the Court, which rejected the idea that the government should be in the business of picking and choosing which hospitals are truly associated with a church. Justin Butterfield, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, cheered the ruling. "The history of the United States of America is one requiring the government to respect the religious freedom and autonomy of its houses of worship and religious organizations. The Supreme Court's decision today respects that great history and tradition, allowing churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious ministries to pursue their religious mission without the weight of government bureaucracy and regulation hindering their efforts and intruding upon their mission."
As FRC's own Travis Weber points out, "While this case involves a relatively innocuous issue of statutory interpretation, the result is a good one because it stands for the principle of guarding against government infringement on the autonomy of religious organizations."
This is just the latest in a long line of decisions that shows the Court's respect for the true wall between church and state. After all, the Founders' concern was never that the church would influence the state, but that the government would infringe on the church! Rulings like this one, Hosanna Tabor, Little Sisters of the Poor, and others show that the Court recognizes that the long arm of the government should never reach inside the church, especially when it comes to matters like hiring decisions, employee benefits, or conscience rights!
--------------
Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council (FRC). This article was on Tony Perkin's Washington Update an written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family Research Council, SCOTUS, Tension over pension To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
The debate boiled down to two Catholic and one Lutheran hospital systems, which employees argued shouldn't be able to claim a religious exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A handful of staffers took issue with the hospitals' faith ties, saying that it shouldn't let them off the hook from certain funding requirements. In their minds, the government (and specifically, the IRS) should be the one deciding who is and isn't religious enough to qualify. The bench unanimously disagreed, insisting that "a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization therefore qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it."
Interestingly enough, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the Court, which rejected the idea that the government should be in the business of picking and choosing which hospitals are truly associated with a church. Justin Butterfield, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, cheered the ruling. "The history of the United States of America is one requiring the government to respect the religious freedom and autonomy of its houses of worship and religious organizations. The Supreme Court's decision today respects that great history and tradition, allowing churches, synagogues, mosques, and religious ministries to pursue their religious mission without the weight of government bureaucracy and regulation hindering their efforts and intruding upon their mission."
As FRC's own Travis Weber points out, "While this case involves a relatively innocuous issue of statutory interpretation, the result is a good one because it stands for the principle of guarding against government infringement on the autonomy of religious organizations."
This is just the latest in a long line of decisions that shows the Court's respect for the true wall between church and state. After all, the Founders' concern was never that the church would influence the state, but that the government would infringe on the church! Rulings like this one, Hosanna Tabor, Little Sisters of the Poor, and others show that the Court recognizes that the long arm of the government should never reach inside the church, especially when it comes to matters like hiring decisions, employee benefits, or conscience rights!
--------------
Tony Perkins is President of the Family Research Council (FRC). This article was on Tony Perkin's Washington Update an written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Center, FRC, Family Research Council, SCOTUS, Tension over pension To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home