Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment bar a state-law claim that seeks to compel a religiously affiliated hospital to allow medical procedures that violate its longstanding, deeply held religious beliefs?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Dignity Health d/b/a Mercy San Juan Medical Center (“Mercy”) is a Catholic hospital that seeks to further the healing ministry of Jesus by caring for the sick in accordance with Catholic teachings. Mercy provides compassionate care to all patients without discrimination but is prohibited from allowing certain procedures that violate Catholic teachings. Respondent brought suit against Mercy under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act after Mercy declined to allow an elective sterilization procedure that was prohibited by the Ethical and Religious Directives that govern Catholic health care institutions. The California Court of Appeal rejected Mercy’s First Amendment defenses, relying on earlier precedent purporting to apply this Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). The questions presented are: (1) Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment bar a state-law claim that seeks to compel a religiously affiliated hospital to allow medical procedures that violate its longstanding, deeply held religious beliefs? (2) Do the First Amendment’s free expression and free association guarantees bar a state-law claim that seeks to compel a religiously affiliated hospital to allow—and thereby endorse and be associated with— medical procedures that violate its longstanding, deeply held religious beliefs?