Skip to main content

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

1st CircuitJanuary 15, 2013No. 12-1466, 12-1658Cited 179 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lynch, Torruella, Diclerico
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal dismissed by 1st Circuit
Circuit
1st Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court dismissed ACLU's challenge to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding contraceptive coverage mandate implementation.

Similar Rulings

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Conference
1st CircuitFeb 2013
Dismissed
Costa Mesa City Employees' Ass'n v. City of Costa Mesa
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 2012
Mixed Result
Bradley
Unknown CourtMar 1902

<p>APPEAL from District Court, Canyon County.</p> <p>If the title to an act actually indicates, and the act itself actually embraces, two different objects, when the constitution says it shall embrace but one, the whole act must be treated as' void from the manifest impossibility in the court choosing between the two, and holding the act valid as to one and void as to the other. (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, sec. 148, p. 178; Antonio v. Gould, 34 Tex. 49; State v. McCracken, 42 Tex. 383.) “The practice of bringing together into one bill subjects diverse in their nature and having no necessary connection, with a view to combine in their favor the advocates of all, and thus secure the passage of several measures, no one of which could succeed upon its own merits, was one both corruptive of the legislature and dangerous to the state.” (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 172; State v. Silver, 9 Nev. 227; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; State v. Pollock,-19 Nev. 384, 12 Pac. 834; Stewart v. Father Matthew Society, 41 Mich. 72, 1 N. W. 931; Walker v. Caldwell, 4 La. 297; State v. Union, 33 N. J. L. 352; State v. Ransom, 73 Mo. 78; People v. Pills, 35 N. Y. 452; State v. Wright, 14 Or. 365, 12 Pac. 708.) Almost any legitimate enterprise, whether it is a banking association or an irrigation association, is indirectly a benefit to the public, but this is not the sense in which the term is used in reference to taking private property for public use. (Savings etc. Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 455; In re Pequest River, 41 N. J. L. 175.) However salutary a law may be considered in its ultimate objects, unless in its' enforcement there is a method provided for the assessment according to benefits, it cannot under our laws be considered as constitutional. Unless such a provision is made, it will be considered as taking the property without due process of law. No rule of law is better established than that in making special assessments for any purpose, they must be accordin

Remanded
Benjamin Kohn v. State Bar of California
9th CircuitDec 2023
Dismissed
Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.
11th CircuitNov 2019
Mixed Result

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.