The Supreme Court on June 16 handed a win to religious employers, overturning a lower court ruling and ordering New York’s top court to reconsider its abortion coverage mandate under religious liberty protections.

In the unsigned decision, the justices reversed a ruling that upheld New York’s mandate requiring employer health plans to cover “medically necessary” abortions. The rule, first enacted in 2017 and codified in 2022, offers only a narrow exemption for religious entities that both employ and serve people of the same faith — an exemption critics say is too restrictive. 

At the center of the case is a coalition of Catholic organizations, including a nursing home run by nuns and a retirement community affiliated with the Diocese of Albany — both of which serve people of all faiths. 

The groups argue that New York’s law violates their First Amendment rights by denying exemptions to ministries that serve people of all faiths, simply because they do not restrict care to members of their own religion.

“No one would reasonably say a law is generally applicable if it exempts a religious nursing home that serves only Lutherans but not one that serves indigent elderly of all faiths,” the groups wrote in their appeal. “But that is precisely the position adopted by the New York courts.”

The Court’s decision comes in light of Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin, a related decision handed down June 5, in which the justices found that Wisconsin’s tax exemption policy unconstitutionally favored certain religious organizations over others.

Attorney Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the Catholic organizations, praised the high court’s June 16 decision. 

“Religious groups in the Empire State should not be forced to provide insurance coverage that violates their deeply held religious beliefs,” Francisco said in a statement. “We are confident that New York will finally get the message and stop discriminating against religious objectors.” 

The case now returns to the New York Court of Appeals, where judges will be required to reexamine the law’s constitutionality under the new legal precedent.