Breanna Renteria, et al. v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, et al.

Petitioners Breanna Renteria and Laura Smith joined a ministry with fellow Christian believers to share healthcare costs. Petitioners’ religious beliefs compelled them not only to share these costs, but to abstain from health insurance that requires insureds to subsidize religiously objectionable treatments. The Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) expressly recognizes such ministries, defining them as health care sharing ministries (“HCSMs”). By participating in their ACAallowed HCSM, Petitioners are not only exempt from the ACA’s individual mandate to obtain minimum essential coverage, they also enjoy statutory protections for their religious exercise. This protection was suddenly threatened, however, when the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance ordered Petitioners’ ministry to either cease in-state operations or comply with the New Mexico Insurance Code—an act that would effectively kill the HCSM. Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. On review, the Tenth Circuit, over the dissent of Judge Carson, imposed heightened requirements on Petitioners to prove the law was not neutral or generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), and determined that New Mexico’s decision to block ACA-exempt organizations from operating in in its borders was not preempted by federal law. Ultimately, it found Petitioners unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The questions presented are: 1. Under Smith, whether state laws must always be deemed “neutral” unless plaintiffs prove officials acted against them with subjective religious animus and discriminatory motive.