Health Law Daily Wrap Up, GENERAL HEALTH CARE NEWS—D.N.M.: Court denies New Mexico OSI’s motion for summary judgment against health-sharing ministry, (Aug 27, 2025)

By Brittany DiBiaggio, J.D.

Members of a Christian health-sharing ministry can move forward with claims that New Mexico’s enforcement order violated their religious rights.

A federal court rejected the New Mexico insurance regulator’s bid to end a religious liberty lawsuit brought by two members of Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan (“Gospel Light”), known as Liberty HealthShare. The court found that the state’s cease-and-desist order interfered with Gospel Light’s ability to participate in a faith-based healthcare program aligned with their religious beliefs. Although the Gospel Light members continued making payments to the ministry, their testimony demonstrated that they felt cut off from key religious practices, such as prayer-sharing and mutual aid. As a result, the court ruled that Gospel Light had standing and denied the state’s motion for summary judgment (Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance, No. 1:23-cv-00276-MLG-KK (D.N.M. Aug. 25, 2025)).

Background. Gospel Light operated in New Mexico as a healthcare sharing ministry until November 2021, when New Mexico’s Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (“OSI”) ordered it to comply with state insurance laws or cease operations. After Gospel Light lost its administrative challenge, OSI issued a final order in February 2023 halting its activities. In response, three members sued under the First Amendment and due process laws, claiming the order interfered with their religious practices.

Although the members continued making payments to Gospel Light into late 2024, both testified that OSI’s order disrupted their ability to engage meaningfully with the ministry. One member switched to another faith-based program, saying she felt “cut off” from Gospel Light’s religious community. Another member said the order forced her toward conventional insurance plans that violated her beliefs, including coverage for procedures she opposed on religious grounds. OSI moved for summary judgment, arguing that the members lacked standing because they remained enrolled in the program. The members asserted that the cease order effectively blocked their religious participation.

Standing: religious harm. The court held that Gospel Light met its burden establishing Article III standing by showing a concrete, particularized injury tied to OSI’s enforcement actions. Although OSI did not dispute causation or redressability, it argued that Gospel Light had not suffered an injury in fact. The court rejected that argument, focusing its analysis on whether Gospel Light presented enough evidence to support a religious harm under the Establishment Clause.

The court noted that the Tenth Circuit has held that plaintiffs do not need to suffer financial or physical harm to assert an injury under the Establishment Clause. Instead, relatively minor or non-economic impacts, such as being forced to change behavior, avoid specific locations, or alter religious practices, can be sufficient. The court highlighted prior cases where religious individuals had standing to challenge laws or public displays that offended their faith, even when the harm was not particularly severe or quantifiable.

Applying that standard, the court found that OSI’s cease-and-desist order against Gospel Light created more than a symbolic injury. Gospel Light members testified that the program reflected their faith-based values, particularly the biblical principle of caring for others. They chose Gospel Light because its model of mutual aid and community prayer allowed them to practice that obligation.

Further, the court emphasized that the members’ participation went beyond financial obligations. Although the members continued to pay into Gospel Light’s sharing ministry, OSI's cease-and-desist order prevented them from engaging in other aspects of Gospel Light’s program, including organized prayer networks. The court concluded that this disruption interfered with their ability to live out a core part of their faith, creating a concrete injury that satisfied the requirements for standing under the Establishment Clause.

The court distinguished this case from a 2024 ruling where a different health-sharing ministry lacked standing because the state had not taken any enforcement action (Samaritan Ministries Internationalv. Kane, 760 F. Supp. 3d 1267, 1271-72 (D.N.M. 2024)). In contrast, Gospel Light faced a direct cease-and-desist order, which materially affected its members.

Because the record showed disputed facts about how OSI’s order affected the Gospel Light members’ religious practice, the court denied summary judgment.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-00276-MLG-KK.

Judge: Garcia, M.

Attorneys: Elise Christine Funke (Harrison & Hart, LLC) for Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan. Alyssa Nicole Herrera (Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C.) for New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance.

Companies: Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan

Cases: CaseDecisions GCNNews GeneralNews HealthReformNews NewMexicoNews