Document Type
Brief
Case Name
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America
Publication Date
12-19-2025
Abstract
Nos. 25-2575, 25-2662
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States of America
On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
No. 2:17-cv-04540-WB (Hon. Wendy Bettlestone)
From the Summary of the Argument
The agencies’ promulgation of the Religious and Moral Rules challenged in this case was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Widespread litigation against the agencies’ contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act— and multiple trips to the Supreme Court—made clear that the mandate violates the federally protected rights of organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor. After years of failed efforts to alleviate that problem, the agencies adopted these Rules to give wider protections to religious exercise and finally put an end to these ongoing violations of federal law. The agencies explained at length why no other alternative offered a solution to the problem.
Recommended Citation
Meiser, John A. and Kessler, Meredith Holland, "Brief of Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants" (2025). Court Briefs. 99.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/sct_briefs/99
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Religion Commons
Comments
Amicus curiae is the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic within Notre Dame Law School. As an academic institution and teaching law practice, the Clinic promotes and defends the freedom of religion for all people. It advocates for the right of all people to exercise, express, and live according to their beliefs. It defends individuals and organizations of all faiths against interference with these fundamental liberties and has represented an array of groups in cases to defend the right to religious exercise.