A federal judge in Oregon ruled that the state's 2017 Reproductive Health Equity Act violates the U.S. Constitution by forcing a pro-life nonprofit to subsidize insurance coverage for abortion, a mandate the judge found threatens the First Amendment's guarantee of religious free exercise.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai sided with Oregon Right to Life after hearing more than an hour of arguments Tuesday, finding that the state law requiring health benefit plans to cover abortion and contraception is not neutral toward religion. The bench ruling caps a legal fight that began in 2023 and survived an earlier dismissal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it last October.

The decision lands at a moment when religious-liberty challenges to progressive health mandates are gaining traction in federal courts nationwide. For Oregon Right to Life, a nonprofit formed in 1970 with more than 25,000 members and supporters, the ruling vindicates years of argument that the state cannot conscript an organization with sincere religious objections into funding procedures it considers morally wrong.

How the case reached this point

Oregon's Reproductive Health Equity Act requires health benefit plans in the state to cover abortion, contraception, and related services. The law includes a narrow "religious employer" exemption, but Oregon Right to Life, affiliated with the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest anti-abortion organization, could not qualify for it.

The nonprofit filed suit in 2023 against Andrew R. Stolfi, then-director of the state Department of Consumer and Business Services. The following year, Kasubhai, then serving as a federal magistrate judge, rejected the state's motion to dismiss. But U.S. District Judge Ann L. Aiken overturned his recommendation and threw out the case entirely.

The 9th Circuit revived it last October and sent it back to the district court. The appellate panel found that Oregon Right to Life's beliefs about abortion are "religious and sincerely held", a determination the state had contested.

That finding set the stage for Tuesday's ruling, where Kasubhai concluded the law is not neutral toward religion and therefore cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny.

The arguments that shaped the ruling

James Bopp Jr., attorney for Oregon Right to Life, argued that the state's failure to exempt the nonprofit violates its constitutional right to free exercise of "sincere religious beliefs." The organization believes that funding insurance coverage for abortion communicates a message contrary to its convictions. Bopp went further, arguing the entire law fails if its exceptions are unconstitutional.

Bopp also pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last June in a Catholic Charities Bureau case out of Wisconsin. In that case, the high court found that a Catholic charity was entitled to a tax exemption Wisconsin had refused to grant under a state law exempting religious groups from unemployment taxes if they operate primarily for religious purposes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the First Amendment requires government neutrality between religions and that Wisconsin's application imposed a "denominational preference" by differentiating between religions "based on theological lines."

Bopp said the Supreme Court decision "reinforces our argument." Kasubhai's ruling followed the same logic, that Oregon's law, by drawing lines around which employers count as "religious" enough for an exemption, fails the neutrality test.

The state's attorney, Alexander C. Jones, pushed back on every front. He argued the law supports the government's legitimate interest in ensuring equitable access to reproductive health care and does not harm Oregon Right to Life. Jones contended the group has no "religious test for membership" and that its opposition to abortion is not religious in nature.

"The statute is neutral because it does not favor one religious belief over another."

Jones also argued the Catholic charity ruling should have little bearing on the Oregon law. The judge disagreed.

What comes next

Kasubhai said a written opinion would follow the bench ruling. He invited each side to submit briefs within two weeks advising him on what type of relief he should grant. The options on the table are significant: Oregon Right to Life's attorney plans to ask the judge to strike down the state law and its required abortion coverage altogether. Alternatively, the judge could order the state to broaden its definition of "religious employer" to include groups like Oregon Right to Life.

The state will push for a narrow decision applying only to Oregon Right to Life. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield framed the ruling's reach as limited in a statement released after the decision.

"We will know more when a written opinion is issued. At this time, we do believe the impact is limited, as this ruling addresses a specific religious exemption claim brought by one organization."

Rayfield added that his office "will use every tool available to the state to defend access to abortion and Oregon's Reproductive Health Equity Act, including appealing this decision."

Gov. Tina Kotek struck a more combative tone, vowing to work with Rayfield "to pursue every legal avenue available to safeguard access to reproductive health care for every Oregonian who depends on it and minimize any impact to Oregon's protections." The ruling follows a broader pattern of religious-liberty challenges to state abortion mandates gaining ground in the courts.

Kotek defended the law she championed:

"I was proud to champion the Reproductive Health Equity Act because Oregonians believe health care decisions belong to individuals, not employers, not politicians, and not the courts. At a time when reproductive rights are under attack across the country, Oregon has been a leader and a safe harbor. We are not going to back down now."

That framing, "not employers, not politicians, and not the courts", is worth pausing on. The law Kotek championed does the opposite of leaving decisions to individuals. It compels employers, including those with religious objections, to fund specific medical procedures through their insurance plans. The court found that compulsion unconstitutional.

Lois Anderson and the group's position

Lois Anderson, executive director of Oregon Right to Life, outlined the organization's stance on contraception and abortion. The group takes no position on preventative birth control methods that prohibit sperm and egg from uniting. But once sperm and egg have united, Oregon Right to Life opposes any drug, device, or procedure that seeks to halt a pregnancy.

That distinction matters because the state tried to characterize the group's objections as political rather than religious. The 9th Circuit had already rejected that argument, finding the beliefs "religious and sincerely held." Kasubhai's ruling built on that appellate finding.

The case echoes recent federal developments where the government has reversed course on abortion-related mandates after legal and political pressure from pro-life organizations.

The judge behind the ruling

Judge Kasubhai has drawn attention in other high-profile cases. He is the same federal judge who recently blocked enforcement of an HHS declaration by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that labeled certain transgender youth treatments unsafe and ineffective. In that case, Kasubhai ruled that Kennedy exceeded his authority and did not follow proper administrative procedures before issuing the declaration.

During that proceeding, Kasubhai offered pointed remarks about executive overreach. As AP News reported, the judge said: "The notion that 'I will go forward and issue a declaration and see if we can get away with it' is not a principle of governance that adheres to the overarching commitment to a democratic republic that requires the rule of law to be regarded and respected and honored as sacred."

That Kasubhai, a judge willing to block a conservative administration's health policy on procedural grounds, also found Oregon's progressive abortion mandate unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds speaks to the strength of Oregon Right to Life's legal position. This was not a ruling delivered by a reliable conservative ally. It was a judge following the constitutional text where it led.

The transgender-health ruling involved a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states, and the Trump administration is expected to appeal. The Oregon abortion case will likely follow its own path to the 9th Circuit, and potentially beyond.

Planned Parenthood responds

Christopher Coburn, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Oregon, said abortion remains legal in Oregon but warned the ruling could create new obstacles. The broader legal landscape around abortion funding has shifted in recent years, and advocacy groups on both sides are watching closely.

"At its core, this decision is about whether people can actually use their health insurance to get the care they need. Oregon has long stood for the idea that health care should be accessible and affordable, and this ruling moves us in the wrong direction. Stripping away coverage doesn't eliminate the need for care; it just puts it further out of reach for too many people."

Coburn also said the ruling "has the potential to create real and immediate barriers, particularly for people who already face the greatest obstacles to accessing care."

But the ruling does not ban abortion in Oregon. It does not restrict access to contraception. What it does is say the state cannot force a religious nonprofit to pay for coverage that violates its sincere beliefs. That is a constitutional principle, not an access restriction.

A broader pattern

Oregon's law was part of a wave of state-level mandates passed after the Dobbs decision reshaped the national abortion landscape. Progressive states moved to entrench abortion access in statute and regulation, often with little regard for the religious-liberty implications of forcing every employer into compliance.

The courts have increasingly pushed back when governments try to override sincere religious convictions through facially neutral mandates that are not, in practice, neutral at all. The Supreme Court's Catholic Charities Bureau decision last June reinforced the principle that government cannot draw theological lines to decide which groups deserve religious exemptions.

Oregon's attorney general and governor have promised to fight. They will appeal. They will argue the ruling should apply to one organization and no further. But the constitutional logic of Kasubhai's bench ruling, that the law is not neutral toward religion, does not lend itself to a narrow fix.

If the law's exemption framework is unconstitutional as applied to Oregon Right to Life, other religious employers in the state may have grounds to raise the same claim. The state built a mandate and drew the exemption lines too tightly. A federal judge noticed.

When a government tells a pro-life group with sincere religious beliefs that it must fund abortion coverage or face the consequences, and a federal court says that violates the First Amendment, the proper response is not outrage. It is compliance with the Constitution.