A federal judge in North Dakota ruled Monday that a Christian business group and its members are not required to provide health insurance to employees for gender transition treatment.
In the Bismarck case, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot force the Christian Employers Alliance (CEA) to comply with rules that require its application. handed down a judgment.
The decision, which grants summary judgment to the CEA on key issues in the case, comes nearly two years after Traynor. temporarily shielded The group violates the rules while he listens to the incident.
Matt Bowman, a CEA attorney with the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement: “The court has a strong commitment to preventing the administration from enforcing illegal orders that disrespect people of faith. “I had a basis for it,” he said.
The EEOC and HHS did not respond to requests for comment.
The federal Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurance plans from engaging in discrimination, including sexual bias. US Supreme Court in 2020 Case Bostock v. Clayton County The court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of unlawful sex discrimination.
The EEOC and HHS said in 2021 that they interpreted the ACA to require employer health insurance plans to cover surgeries and other procedures related to gender transition.
The Washington-based CEA subsequently sued the agencies, alleging that their interpretation of the law violated the rights of religious employers under the First Amendment.
The group’s bylaws state that “male and female are immutable realities defined by biological sex,” and that “reassignment of gender is contrary to Christian values.”
In his initial order prohibiting enforcement of the rule, Traynor agreed that the rule violates the beliefs of CEA members.
He reiterated that finding on Monday, saying that requiring companies to pay for treatment “places a substantial burden on sincere religious practices and beliefs.”
He said the government has not shown that it cannot protect the rights of transgender employees in other ways, such as by offering them tax credits or subsidies.
The case is Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, No. 1:21-cv-00195.
For CEA: Matt Bowman, Julie Marie Blake, and Jacob Reed of Alliance Defending Freedom.
For the EEOC and HHS: Jeremy Newman, U.S. Department of Justice
