A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care.
Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties.
The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review.
But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient.
'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo.
The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday.
The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website.
The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms.
Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.'
And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.'
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved.
Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office.
When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold.
The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
___
Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Kamala Harris decided not to run for California governor. What does that mean for 2028?
At 60, she is certainly young enough to run again -- and more than two decades younger than the president she served. But for a party seeking a reset after President Donald Trump won for a second time, and figuring out how to win back trust with working-class voters, she would be anything but a fresh face. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up More than a half-dozen people who spoke with Harris before she opted to skip the governor's race advised against overinterpreting her decision as guiding her 2028 plans. Advertisement 'I don't think that any of us should jump to the conclusion that this decision had anything to do with 2028,' said Laphonza Butler, the former California senator who is close with Harris. 'I do think that for her, all options are on the table if she wanted to go again and run for the presidency.' Harris has been perched at or near the top of some of the way-too-early 2028 primary polling, though political professionals say that is largely because of her relative level of fame. Advertisement If Harris does run, it would set up a highly unusual situation where a number of candidates whom she had vetted to be her running mate, and the man she actually selected, could be her primary rivals -- Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg among them. None of those would-be candidates are expected to defer to her should she run again. California Governor Gavin Newsom can't run for re-election because of term limits, and he is seen as a possible Democratic candidate for president. Jae C. Hong/Associated Press Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, with whom Harris has long shared senior political aides, has for months been acting like someone preparing a national campaign. And there is ample video of just about everyone in the top ranks of Democratic politics vouching for Harris for president last year. Harris, perhaps more than any other Democrat, would have to reckon with her support for Biden as his acuity deteriorated before the American public. She did not allow any daylight between herself and Biden while he was still running for reelection. Then, when she became the party's nominee, she said in an interview on 'The View' that there was nothing she could think of that she would have done differently from him. Some ambitious Democrats have said Harris was handicapped by the truncated nature of her own campaign. But those same Democrats -- almost all of whom had backed Biden to the end -- have mostly avoided blaming Biden for seeking reelection in the first place. 'There's always the fear that if she runs for president again, 2028 could devolve into a discussion of what went wrong in 2024,' said Roger Wolfson, a Hollywood writer and Democratic speechwriter. Advertisement Harris is said to be working on a book but has yet to reveal an arrangement with a publisher, though a deal is expected soon. A book, of course, would eventually allow Harris to do a book tour and keep herself in the public eye. She is also expected to form an organization shortly that would allow her to raise funds and pay for travel and political activities. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said Wednesday that he had spoken with Harris about traveling to competitive House districts beginning this fall to assist Democratic candidates. 'She's going to be all across the country for the 2026 midterms,' Garcia said. 'She wants to help us flip the House.' Kamala Harris spoke at the HumanX AI Conference in Las Vegas on March 09, 2025. Bigfor HumanX Conference Harris, who was widely criticized last year for doing very few media interviews, is expected to begin talking with podcast hosts and journalists beginning after Labor Day, according to a person she has spoken with about her plans. One person who spoke with Harris said that it had been a 'gut decision' for her not to run for governor before a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline and that her heart was not in a statewide campaign. She has told colleagues recently that after holding public office continuously for two decades she was ready to take a break and instead seek to make changes from outside the political system next. 'I will remain in that fight,' she said in the last line in her statement announcing that she would not run for governor. This article originally appeared in Advertisement
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump calls GOP's Hawley ‘second tier' senator after stock trading ban bill advances
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday after the Republican's proposal to ban stock trading by members of Congress — and the president and vice president — won bipartisan approval to advance in a committee vote. It's the second time in as many days that Trump laid into senators in his own party as the president tries, sometimes without success, to publicly pressure them to fall in line. A day earlier Trump tore into veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa over an obscure Senate procedure regarding nominations. Trump called Hawley a 'second rate Senator.' GOP senators had been working with the White House on the stock trade bill, and proposed a carve-out to shield the president from the ban, but it failed. But Trump complained that Hawley joined with Democrats to block another amendment that would have investigated the stock trades of Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker emerita. 'Why would one 'Republican,' Senator Josh Hawley from the Great State of Missouri, join with all of the Democrats, to block a Review,' Trump said. Hawley did not immediately respond to Trump's post. But Hawley's legislation with the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sailed out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on a bipartisan vote over the objections of the other Republicans, who have majority control. 'We have an opportunity here today to do something that the public has wanted to do for decades,' Hawley told the panel. 'And that is to ban members of Congress from profiting on information that frankly only members of Congress have on the buying and selling of stock.' Stock trading by members of Congress has long been an issue that the parties have tried to tackle, especially as some elected officials have become wealthy while in elected office. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, it was disclosed that lawmakers were trading as information about the health crisis as it became known. Insider trading laws don't always apply to the types of information lawmakers receive. In a joint statement, Hawley and Peters said the legislation, called the Honest Act, builds on an earlier bill and would ban members of Congress, the president, vice president and their spouses from holding, buying or selling stock. If the bill were to become law, it would immediately prohibit elected officials, including the president, from buying stocks and would ban them from selling stocks for 90 days after enactment. It also requires the elected officials to divest from all covered investments, starting at the beginning of their next term in office. 'We are one step closer to getting this bill passed into law and finally barring bad actors from taking advantage of their positions for their own financial gain,' Peters said in a statement. But during the committee hearing, tensions flared as Republicans sought other approaches. GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida proposed one amendment that would exempt the president, the vice president, their spouses and dependent children, from the legislation, and another that would have required a report on Pelosi's trades. Both were defeated, with Hawley joining the Democrats. One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said the overall bill is 'legislative demagoguery.' 'We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,' Johnson said. 'So I don't see the necessity of this.' Trump's post criticizing Hawley comes after a similar blowback directed Tuesday night at Grassley. In that post, Trump pressured Grassley to do away with the Senate's longtime 'blue slip' custom that often forces bipartisan support on presidential nominations of federal judges. The practice requires both senators in a state to agree to push a nominee forward for a vote. Trump told Grassley to do away with the practice. 'Senator Grassley must step up,' Trump said, while claiming that he helped the senator, who was first elected in 1980, to win reelection. Grassley earlier Wednesday said he was 'offended' by what the president said.
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's economy is already proving the doomsayers completely wrong
So much for the prophecies of Trumponomics doom: Not only did the US economy grow at a 3% rate in the second quarter, the growth was all in the private sector as the government portion shrank. Meanwhile, ADP reports that private-sector employment rose by 104,000 jobs in July, with annual wages jumping 4.4% — well above the rate of inflation, which also remains markedly lower than the conventional-wisdom crew predicted. That is, growth was half again the consensus forecast for April-June, while July looks like a huge boon for American workers — all as many of President Donald Trump's policies have only begun to kick in. Advertisement ADP reports that private-sector employment rose by 104,000 jobs in July, with annual wages jumping 4.4% — well above the rate of inflation. AP Trump's tariffs have neither crashed the economy nor kicked off fresh inflation — though of course those predictions largely came from 'experts' who never expected the bane of Bidenflation. For all Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell's fussing, the Fed's preferred gauge of inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, was up just 2.1% in Q2, down from 3.7% in Q1. As for the (very real) issue of federal debt: It surely can't hurt that Uncle Sam's spending and 'investment' fell at a 3.7% rate in the second quarter, after a 4.6% annualized drop in the first. Advertisement Bizarrely, that counts as harming GDP in the official stats, even though the nation's plainly far better off with the wealth-creating private sector booming while the wealth-consuming public sector goes on a (modest) diet. Meanwhile, Trump deregulation should offer a huge boost to the economy, with a single move — the repeal of the EPA's Obama-era 'climate endangerment' finding, expected to boost GDP by $150 billion to $440 billion a year. Advertisement The president's push for more and cheaper energy will be another a huge, anti-inflationary spur to growth, and added reason for optimism among consumers and producers. Trump's first term was a huge win for working Americans up until COVID escaped from that Wuhan lab; now the second term is shaping up even better . . . for everyone except the professional doomsayers, anyway.
