A federal judge in North Dakota has temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s rules on abortion and transgender accommodations for Catholic employers.
At a Glance
- A federal judge allowed over 8,000 Catholic employers to reject government regulations protecting workers seeking abortions and fertility care.
- U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck were likely to succeed in proving the EEOC’s rule violated their religious freedom.
- The judge barred the EEOC from enforcing harassment regulations that would require the diocese and association to support abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition.
- The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, passed in December 2022, aimed to provide accommodations for pregnant workers but faced controversy over its expansive view on pregnancy-related conditions.
- The ruling offers protection to over 1,300 Catholic employers and 7,100 parishes associated with the Catholic Benefits Association.
Judicial Ruling and Religious Freedom
U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration’s rules enforcing abortion and transgender accommodations for Catholic employers. The judge concluded that the Catholic Benefits Association and the Diocese of Bismarck were likely to demonstrate that the EEOC’s guidelines violated their religious freedoms under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This decision halts the enforcement of specific guidelines under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
With this ruling, over 8,000 Catholic employers are permitted to abstain from federal regulations mandating support for abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition, arguing these requirements infringe upon their faith-based principles. Judge Traynor emphasized that the rule enforced by the Biden administration would force Catholic employers to choose between their religious beliefs and compliance, causing “irreparable harm.”
US judge backs Catholic employers who challenged abortion regulation https://t.co/XmtOwBLLJq pic.twitter.com/NQfBCxYEJz
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 24, 2024
Context and Legal Implications
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, signed into law in December 2022, was designed to offer broader accommodations for pregnant employees. However, its expansive interpretation of pregnancy-related conditions has sparked significant controversy. Critics argue that the judge’s ruling could deter pregnant workers from exercising their rights and set a dangerous precedent for leveraging religious beliefs to counter civil rights protections.
Judge Traynor, who has affiliations with Catholic and conservative groups, previously issued rulings against federal laws requiring Christian employers to cover gender-transition care. This injunction continues to reflect his stance on preserving religious conscience protections for Catholic employers, potentially impacting similar future cases.
Broader Political and Social Context
The decision adds to ongoing debates surrounding reproductive rights and federal mandates on religious institutions. The Department of Justice has declined to comment, while federal attorneys argue that the plaintiffs’ case lacked legal standing and was speculative in nature. The case mirrors broader tensions between religious freedom and anti-discrimination mandates.
“It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age,” Traynor wrote. “One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion.”
This ruling is part of a series of legal challenges targeting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. A separate challenge by 17 Republican-led states was previously defeated, with the appeal now pending before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Similarly, a federal judge in Louisiana has blocked enforcement of the rule for certain regions, including a Catholic bishops’ group.
Ultimately, this legal battle underscores the enduring conflict between upholding religious liberties and enforcing federal employment standards designed to combat discrimination.
