Catholic Charities of the Diocese v. Serio
New York Court of Appeals
POINTS OF COUNSEL
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
R.S. Smith, J.
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of legislation requiring health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for contraception. Plaintiffs assert that the provisions they challenge violate their rights under the religion clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We hold that the legislation, as applied to these plaintiffs, is valid.
The Challenged Legislation
In 2002, the Legislature enacted what is known as the “Women’s Health and Wellness Act” (WHWA), mandating expanded health insurance coverage for a variety of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Fortress Bible Church v. FeinerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States & Canada v. New York City Department of Health & Mental HygieneCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of PomonaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. v. Village of PomonaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. BurwellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.