General
SCOTUS Amici Curiae Brief for Stormans, Inc. v John Wiesman (2016)
SCOTUS Amici Curiae Brief for Stormans, Inc. v John Wiesman, February 5, 2016
Question Presented: As explained in the petition, Washington forbids pharmacies to decline to stock and dispense abortifacient drugs because of religious objections. Washington seeks to enforce this rule even though the regulation exposes only religious objectors—not secular objectors—to liability. The Ninth Circuit held that this religious gerrymander did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The question presented is: Does a law prohibiting religiously motivated conduct violate the Free Exercise Clause when it (a) exempts the same conduct undertaken for a host of secular reasons, (b) has been enforced only against religious conduct and (c) has a history showing an intent to target religion?
In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit approved a religious gerrymander of the very sort condemned in Lukumi—except that in this case the gerrymander has been directed not at a small, obscure religion, but at people and institutions holding mainstream Christian beliefs about the sanctity of human life.