Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general and President Biden’s controversial nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, narrowly managed to move through a procedural Senate vote on Thursday to advance his confirmation. Democrats have touted Becerra’s experience as a staunch defender of affordable healthcare and access to abortion, while GOP senators have argued that he is an unqualified culture warrior based on his record on First Amendment- and religious liberty-related cases. Here’s a look at some of those cases.
REPUBLICAN COLLINS VOTES WITH DEMOCRATS TO ADVANCE BECERRA NOMINATION FOR HHS SECRETARY
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra: The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an organization that gives legal advice to crisis pregnancy centers, sued the state in 2018 over a 2015 law that they argued violated their religious freedoms. In the case filed against Becerra in his capacity as California’s chief legal officer, NIFLA argued that California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act was unconstitutional because it required Christian nonprofit organizations to notify pregnant patients of the option to undergo an abortion at state-sponsored clinics.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 in a 5-4 decision in favor of NIFLA, maintaining that requiring the notices of abortion access violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruling overturned an earlier decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Becerra and other blue states v. the Trump administration: Becerra led a lawsuit against HHS and the Labor and Treasury departments over a 2017 rule that would exempt faith-based ministries, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns who provide care to elderly poor people, from the Obamacare mandate that insurance plans provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. The mandate has been a target of religious and conservative groups who argue that it violates religious liberties.
After issuing a temporary injunction to block the Trump administration’s new regulations meant to address “conscience-based objections,” the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Little Sisters of the Poor and the March for Life Education and Defense Fund to intervene in the case.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in July 2020 in a parallel case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and Pennsylvania, holding that the Trump administration had the legal authority to exempt certain employers from the contraception mandate. The court did not decide on the case involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and California, though it sent the case back to the 9th Circuit to be decided based on the Pennsylvania decision, delivering a legal loss for Becerra.
ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT RALLIES AGAINST BIDEN PICK TO LEAD HHS
California churches v. coronavirus restrictions enacted by Gov. Gavin Newsom: The Supreme Court sided with the Pasadena-based Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry, which operates churches across the state, in December. The order granted a temporary injunction against state coronavirus restrictions that the churches argued were in violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. Becerra issued a defense of Newsom’s ban on indoor church services in November, arguing that “California is experiencing an unprecedented surge in COVID-19 cases, creating an even greater public health need for restrictions on prolonged communal gatherings in indoor places.”
The Supreme Court justices said a lower court should heed a recent decision in which New York places of worship sued to undo Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions. In that case, the court granted an injunction to Catholic churches and Jewish synagogues, saying they were treated unequally in lockdown orders.
California v. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress: In 2017, Becerra filed suit on behalf of the state against anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for posing as researchers from a fake biotechnology company to record clandestine videos of themselves trying to procure fetal tissue from abortion providers.
Becerra brought 15 felony charges against Daleiden and Merritt for illegally filming more than a dozen people in Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2014 and 2015. The Superior Court of San Francisco rejected calls from the defense to dismiss the case in 2019. At their arraignment the following year, Daleiden and Merritt pleaded not guilty to nine felony counts involving eavesdropping and invasion of privacy. Daleiden has argued that he was working as an undercover journalist when he secretly recorded the conversations, which he maintains were his “First Amendment work product.” The legal battle is underway in state court.
