arguments

Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity."Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”
Read More

Notre Dame awards religious liberty prize to Becket Fund for Supreme Court wins #Catholic Notre Dame Law School awarded its 2026 Prize for Religious Liberty to the Becket Fund — a nonprofit law firm that has secured 13 Supreme Court victories in the past 15 years defending the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections.“We’re deeply honored to be recognized with the religious liberty prize,” Becket President and CEO Mark Rienzi told EWTN News.“We’re honored to be able to be part of fighting to protect something that is very important for our country and the Church,” said Reinzi, who accepted the award at the July 8 conclusion of Notre Dame’s sixth annual Religious Liberty Summit in Chicago.Becket — established in 1994 to provide cost-free legal counsel to those whose religious liberties were violated — has an undefeated record at the Supreme Court.Its lawyers represented the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby against contraception mandates, defended the rights of Maryland parents to opt their children out of gender-related coursework that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and backed a Catholic foster care agency that only placed children with opposite-sex married couples.G. Marcus Cole, a dean and professor of law at Notre Dame, said during the award ceremony that when the university started giving out the award, “we always imagined that it would go to one person.”“But when we think about the Becket Fund, it is an entire team of lawyers, led by Mark Rienzi, who have made a difference in our world, who have made our lives better,” he said. “And for that reason, we thought it only appropriate to give the award to the Becket Fund as an entity."Ongoing fights for religious libertyThe most recent victory secured by Becket came in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which ensured parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, had a right to opt their children out of coursework that included material related to gender that conflicted with their religious faith.Rienzi told EWTN News that “parents don’t give up the right to [raise] their children when they drop their kids off at the schoolhouse gates.” He added: “Your children don’t belong to the state just because you use a public school.”Becket represented Catholic, Ethiopian Orthodox, and Muslim parents in the lawsuit. Rienzi said religious parents have a right to “operate equally as a full citizen and full member of the public” by utilizing the public school system while maintaining the right to instill religious values in their children.“[This was] the most important case in at least 50 or 100 years in establishing that principle,” he said.Becket also secured the 2020 victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of federal regulations that exempted the religious sisters from mandatory contraception coverage in insurance plans.The sisters, however, are back in court after the governments of Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged those exemptions on separate grounds than those on which the court previously ruled. This case is now in an appellate court, which heard oral arguments on July 7. Becket is representing them again and Rienzi is the lead attorney on the case.“It’s outrageous that governments keep volunteering for the beating they get when they keep [going after] the Little Sisters of the Poor,” Rienzi said.He said “the law is really, really clear” that Pennsylvania cannot remove their exemptions from the mandate.Becket is also representing a coalition of Catholic preschools in Colorado that is suing the state because they were excluded from a “universal” tuition program. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Notre Dame awarded Becket the prize less than one week after Americans celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which culminated in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which secured religious freedom.“God created everybody equal and equally free and gave them rights,” Rienzi said, adding that religious freedom is “essential to the declaration’s idea of who we are as a country and … [it] is crucial for maintaining it.”“It’s a shame that you still have to fight about it,” Rienzi said. “But on the other hand, it’s worth fighting for.”

unitedyam

Becket President Mark Rienzi said the group is “deeply honored” to be awarded the prize, saying religious liberty “is worth fighting for.”

Read More
Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”
Read More

Little Sisters argue contraception mandate case before 3rd Circuit as long fight continues #Catholic Legal counsel for the Little Sisters of the Poor delivered oral arguments to a federal appellate court on July 7 as the Catholic religious society continued its 15-year legal battle over contraception mandates.The dispute goes back to a 2011 federal regulation imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which requires employers to include coverage of contraception in healthcare plans offered to employees, as part of rules implementing the Affordable Care Act.Although the Little Sisters of the Poor already won two Supreme Court cases — which found the federal government must protect the religious freedom of those who object to contraception and that the federal government has the authority to create exemptions — the attorneys general of Pennsylvania and New Jersey are challenging federal exemptions on grounds that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on.A lower court ruled in favor of the two states, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, finding that the federal exemptions are arbitrary and capricious. The sisters filed an appeal, which is being considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.Aimee Thomson, who represented the two states, argued that the broad exemptions — which allow both religious and moral objectors to avoid the mandate — are “arbitrary and capricious” and that the exemptions “swept well beyond all religious employers” who first objected to the mandate.Under the rule, employers who have moral or religious objections can opt in to an accommodation in which the federal government subsidizes contraception coverage in their plans. Employers who also have moral or religious objections to the accommodation can sidestep contraception coverage altogether.She told the panel of judges that the exemption exceeds the scope that is required under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). She said the regulators failed to show that these exemptions were necessary to solve the religious liberty issue and expressed concerns over employers potentially getting exemptions even though their objections are not sincere.Thomson said it’s unclear “how many women have been impacted” by insincere objections, but “expecting female employees” to study policies and litigate an employer’s insincere objections is burdensome.“That is an incredible burden to place on employees and on women,” she said.Mark Rienzi, president of Becket and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, argued that the federal government sought to “choose a middle ground” that created a mandate but protected religious freedom, based on Supreme Court guidance: “Nothing about that is even close to arbitrary and capricious.”“This law is about the federal government … accommodating religion with its own mandate,” he said.Rienzi said a rule does not become arbitrary and capricious just because the scope is “a hair more than what’s required” under RFRA.The Little Sisters of the Poor are also receiving support from the Department of Justice. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur argued on behalf of the federal government, in favor of the exemptions, saying RFRA does not require the exemptions to be the “bare minimum.”He said HHS chose to “set everything aside and take a fresh look at everything” and decided “an exemption was the most appropriate administrative response” to objections. He said this was adopted “as a policy matter … even if RFRA does not compel it.”McArthur argued there is “no good reason” for someone to insincerely request an exemption because the employer can request the accommodation “at zero cost.” Yet, if the court decides the exemptions are too broad, the court could strike down “one line in the rule” rather than “take down the entire rule,” as the two states have requested.Mother Loraine Marie Maguire of the Little Sisters of the Poor said in a statement after the oral arguments that the states’ lawsuit to eliminate the exemptions is threatening their mission to serve the poor and the elderly.“This is our God-given mission,” she said “For nearly 200 years we have welcomed the elderly poor and dying into our homes, and with the population of seniors rapidly growing we cannot allow a government lawsuit to stop us from carrying out our mission. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can keep fighting if they want. All we want is to keep serving.”

unitedyam

The dispute stems from a 2011 federal rule requiring employers to include contraception coverage in employee health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

Read More
Five years of euthanasia in Spain: The toll and path forward to overturn #Catholic It hasbeen five years since the Euthanasia Law came into effect in Spain — a law that, since its approval, has claimed the lives of 1,668 people, according to official data published by the Spanish Ministry of Health.Since its inception, the number of euthanasia procedures carried out in the country has risen steadily; from 75 in the second half of 2021 to 288 in 2022, followed by 334 in 2023, some 426 in 2024 and 565 in 2025.The Madrid-based Professionals for Ethics Association has issued a report that points out that the progression of euthanasia over the past five years shows that “once approved, euthanasia becomes a slippery slope” with destructive effects.In addition to accelerated year-to-year growth in the number of euthanasia cases, the ethics professionals cite the progressive expansion of the grounds for the procedure under the catch-all category of “severe suffering.”Euthanasia procedures have been streamlined “even at the cost of reducing or eliminating safeguards,” according to the report.Euthanasia is being promoted “as an altruistic choice, based on arguments regarding organ donation and bequests to pro-euthanasia associations.”The report denounces the “imposition of the so-called ‘right to die’ and personal autonomy over good medical practice.”The practice of euthanasia results in the “abandonment of clinical effort” in situations where it appears to be an “easier and less costly” option. The report also underscores that euthanasia “harms the relationship of trust” between patient and physician, as well as between the patient and their family members.The "normalization of euthanasia" in society and among healthcare professionals has led to the "loss of the meaning of vulnerable life, of aging, and of the value of caring for and accompanying” such patients, the report finds.Other destructive effects include “social pressure on dependent individuals based on ‘quality of life’ criteria and the perception of being a burden to others” and, finally, the fostering of individualism and “society’s indifference toward suffering.”RecommendationsBeyond pointing out dangers and contradictions inherent in the advance of euthanasia in Spain, the Professionals for Ethics Association proposes five measures “to reverse the slippery slope of euthanasia upon which we have already embarked.” The first recommended measure is to develop “the plan, organization, and resources necessary to provide nationwide palliative care coverage," which must include "home-based teams and specialized pediatric units."The ethics professionals also recommend boosting support “for vulnerable individuals and their families,” specifically those facing dependency, mental illness, and unwanted loneliness. This requires both the allocation of resources to address these challenges and facilitating “family support through programs that balance work and family life in order to provide care” for the patient.A third recommendation is to monitor official information regarding the euthanasia procedures performed in order to “ensure rigor in the processes for requesting and approving euthanasia,” as well as preventing lax interpretations of the law that make “euthanasia the easiest, most accessible, and quickest ‘solution’.”Fourth, the association holds that “it is vital to preserve the mission and objectives of healthcare aimed at preventing, curing, and caring for health as well as professional ethics and practice.”In this regard, the group emphasizes that “euthanasia runs counter to the essence of medicine, caring for human life, and should never be considered a medical act.” Thus, the association also advocates the right of healthcare workers to conscientiously object to participating in euthanasia procedures.Finally, the association calls for halting the promotion of euthanasia, as its rise “is neither a social good nor a sign of progress in human rights, nor is it even a neutral matter.”“The fact that an increasing number of people in Spain desire a lethal injection should be a cause for concern, not celebration,” the group emphasizes; and therefore advocates for “a euthanasia prevention plan” similar to those for suicide and, ultimately, the repeal of the euthanasia law and the enactment of legislation “that facilitates the care of human life until the very end.”This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
Read More

Five years of euthanasia in Spain: The toll and path forward to overturn #Catholic It hasbeen five years since the Euthanasia Law came into effect in Spain — a law that, since its approval, has claimed the lives of 1,668 people, according to official data published by the Spanish Ministry of Health.Since its inception, the number of euthanasia procedures carried out in the country has risen steadily; from 75 in the second half of 2021 to 288 in 2022, followed by 334 in 2023, some 426 in 2024 and 565 in 2025.The Madrid-based Professionals for Ethics Association has issued a report that points out that the progression of euthanasia over the past five years shows that “once approved, euthanasia becomes a slippery slope” with destructive effects.In addition to accelerated year-to-year growth in the number of euthanasia cases, the ethics professionals cite the progressive expansion of the grounds for the procedure under the catch-all category of “severe suffering.”Euthanasia procedures have been streamlined “even at the cost of reducing or eliminating safeguards,” according to the report.Euthanasia is being promoted “as an altruistic choice, based on arguments regarding organ donation and bequests to pro-euthanasia associations.”The report denounces the “imposition of the so-called ‘right to die’ and personal autonomy over good medical practice.”The practice of euthanasia results in the “abandonment of clinical effort” in situations where it appears to be an “easier and less costly” option. The report also underscores that euthanasia “harms the relationship of trust” between patient and physician, as well as between the patient and their family members.The "normalization of euthanasia" in society and among healthcare professionals has led to the "loss of the meaning of vulnerable life, of aging, and of the value of caring for and accompanying” such patients, the report finds.Other destructive effects include “social pressure on dependent individuals based on ‘quality of life’ criteria and the perception of being a burden to others” and, finally, the fostering of individualism and “society’s indifference toward suffering.”RecommendationsBeyond pointing out dangers and contradictions inherent in the advance of euthanasia in Spain, the Professionals for Ethics Association proposes five measures “to reverse the slippery slope of euthanasia upon which we have already embarked.” The first recommended measure is to develop “the plan, organization, and resources necessary to provide nationwide palliative care coverage," which must include "home-based teams and specialized pediatric units."The ethics professionals also recommend boosting support “for vulnerable individuals and their families,” specifically those facing dependency, mental illness, and unwanted loneliness. This requires both the allocation of resources to address these challenges and facilitating “family support through programs that balance work and family life in order to provide care” for the patient.A third recommendation is to monitor official information regarding the euthanasia procedures performed in order to “ensure rigor in the processes for requesting and approving euthanasia,” as well as preventing lax interpretations of the law that make “euthanasia the easiest, most accessible, and quickest ‘solution’.”Fourth, the association holds that “it is vital to preserve the mission and objectives of healthcare aimed at preventing, curing, and caring for health as well as professional ethics and practice.”In this regard, the group emphasizes that “euthanasia runs counter to the essence of medicine, caring for human life, and should never be considered a medical act.” Thus, the association also advocates the right of healthcare workers to conscientiously object to participating in euthanasia procedures.Finally, the association calls for halting the promotion of euthanasia, as its rise “is neither a social good nor a sign of progress in human rights, nor is it even a neutral matter.”“The fact that an increasing number of people in Spain desire a lethal injection should be a cause for concern, not celebration,” the group emphasizes; and therefore advocates for “a euthanasia prevention plan” similar to those for suicide and, ultimately, the repeal of the euthanasia law and the enactment of legislation “that facilitates the care of human life until the very end.”This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.

unitedyam

Euthanasia is on the rise in Spain, and as its destructive effects become more apparent, ethics professionals are offering recommendations to prevent and ultimately eliminate the practice.

Read More