Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a major victory to Oregon Right to Life by reinstating its lawsuit against the State of Oregon concerning a law that mandates pro-life organizations include abortion in their employee health insurance plans. This decision represents a pivotal moment in Oregon Right to Life’s long-standing legal battle, as the case has now been sent back to the district court for further consideration.
On Friday, October 31, a 2-1 panel from the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Oregon Right to Life v. Stolfi, reversing a previous dismissal by a lower court. The case originated when Oregon Right to Life, represented by the Bopp Law Firm, filed its lawsuit in 2023, seeking an exemption from Oregon’s 2017 Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), which mandates that nearly all health insurance plans cover abortion and abortifacient contraceptives. While the law provides a limited exemption for religious employers, Oregon Right to Life does not qualify under its narrow definition.
In September 2024, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken dismissed the pro-life organization’s claim, prompting the Bopp Law Firm to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court’s ruling overturned Aiken’s decision, sending the case back to the district court for reevaluation.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who authored the majority opinion, also expressed in a concurrence that the RHEA exhibits discriminatory characteristics and should undergo “strict scrutiny” by the lower court. He urged the district court to grant Oregon Right to Life a preliminary injunction, citing the organization’s strong likelihood of success on its First Amendment claims.
Following the appellate court’s ruling, Oregon Right to Life’s case will return to the district court, which is now tasked with reassessing the pro-life group’s First Amendment complaint against the state.
In a press release issued shortly after the decision, the Bopp Law Firm contended that the narrowly defined “religious employer” exception in Oregon’s RHEA infringes upon fundamental First Amendment rights. The court highlighted that “the religious motivation for ORTL’s beliefs is both abundantly clear and unrebutted,” countering the district court’s earlier conclusions.
James Bopp Jr., lead counsel for Oregon Right to Life, underscored the constitutional implications of the case. “It is crucial for courts to take claims of religious belief seriously,” he stated. “The First Amendment would ring hollow if courts could simply declare that plainly religious beliefs are not religious and therefore do not deserve constitutional protection. We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit panel issued a ruling that acknowledges the fundamental nature of the Constitution’s most essential protections.”
