Alicia Lowe, et al. v. Janet T. Mills, Governor of Maine, et al.

“Reliance on state statutes to excuse noncompliance with federal law is simply unacceptable under the Supremacy Clause.” Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colorado Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1233 (10th Cir. 2009). As Justice Gorsuch noted during his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, “a state law at odds with a valid Act of Congress is no law at all. Accordingly, the demands of the federal [antidiscrimination law] do not yield to state laws that discriminate against the [protected class]; it works the other way around.” Id. at 1234 (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Simply put, “the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires a different order of priority. A discriminatory state law is not a defense to liability under federal law; it is a source of liability under federal law.” Id. (quoting Quinones v. City of Evanston, 58 F.3d 275, 277 (7th Cir. 1995)). The First Circuit’s decision below constitutionally inverted this analysis. The First Circuit held that following Title VII’s demands to provide reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs is an undue hardship when following Title VII “would have exposed the Providers to penalties for violating [state law].” (App. 37a). The First Circuit’s decision below reverses the supremacy of federal over state law. The questions presented are: (1) Whether compliance with state laws directly contrary to Title VII’s requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation may serve as an undue