Case Summary
**Case Summary: Stormans Inc. v. Mary Selecky**
**Docket Number:** 7837186
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** Decided in 2015
**Background:**
Stormans Inc., which operates pharmacies in Washington State, challenged a state regulation that required pharmacies to provide emergency contraception (EC) without delay, irrespective of the owner’s personal beliefs or those of the pharmacists. The plaintiffs, including the owners of Stormans, argued that the law infringed upon their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and their rights to due process.
**Legal Issues:**
1. Does the Washington State regulation violate the First Amendment by imposing a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion?
2. Is the regulation unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
**Arguments:**
- **For Stormans Inc.:** The plaintiffs asserted that the regulation forced them to act against their deeply held religious beliefs by requiring them to provide medications that they morally oppose. They argued that this requirement imposes an undue burden on their religious freedom and infringes their rights to operate their business in accordance with their beliefs.
- **For Mary Selecky:** The state argued that the regulation was necessary to ensure access to emergency contraception, which is a significant health care need, and that it did not unfairly target religious pharmacies but applied to all pharmacies equally.
**Court Decision:**
The Ninth Circuit upheld the state regulation, determining that it was a legitimate health policy aimed at ensuring access to necessary medications and was not unduly burdensome on religious exercise. The court found that the regulation was neutral and generally applicable and that it did not specifically target religious beliefs.
**Impact:**
The decision affirmed that state regulations promoting public health can sometimes take precedence over individual business owners' religious objections, especially when it comes to ensuring access to critical health services like emergency contraception.
**Conclusion:**
Stormans Inc. v. Mary Selecky reaffirms the balance between state interests in public health and the protection of religious freedoms, highlighting the complexities involved in cases where business practices intertwine with personal beliefs. The ruling emphasizes the importance of access to healthcare services and the limitations of religious exemptions in business operations.