“This mandate claimed to protect religious groups,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket, a religious liberty law firm representing the plaintiffs. “But the state drew the line so narrowly that ministries serving people of all faiths—or no faith at all—were left out. Under New York’s definition, even Jesus, Mother Teresa, or Mahatma Gandhi wouldn’t qualify for religious protection.”
The mandate’s exemption was limited to organizations that primarily employ and serve members of their own faith community—leaving countless ministries that provide food, shelter, and essential aid to the broader public unprotected and in legal jeopardy.
Although the Supreme Court had already sent the case back to New York in 2021, instructing the state’s judiciary to consider the implications of Fulton v. Philadelphia—a decision which held that government actions burdening religion must withstand the highest level of constitutional scrutiny—state courts refused to reconsider their ruling. Monday’s order from the Supreme Court is a far more forceful directive: New York must now apply strict scrutiny, meaning it must demonstrate that the abortion mandate serves a “compelling government interest” and is the least restrictive means of achieving it without violating religious freedom.
The directive follows the Court’s clear reasoning in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin, where the justices affirmed that governments may not show favoritism to certain religious expressions while penalizing others—especially in matters of conscience and public service.
“This is the second time the Supreme Court has had to step in on behalf of these religious ministries,” Windham noted in a statement posted to X. “These organizations want to serve the vulnerable without being forced to violate their moral beliefs. The message is clear: it’s time for New York to respect religious freedom.”
As legal observers await New York’s next move, the case signals a broader shift in how the Supreme Court is addressing religious liberty challenges in the face of expanding state mandates. For now, the Court’s unanimous rebuke serves as both a warning to state governments and a rallying cry for faith-based institutions across the country.