Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Zubik v. Burwell
 | |
| Zubik v. Burwell | |
| Docket number: 14-1418 | |
| Court: United States Supreme Court | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan | |
Zubik v. Burwell is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. At issue was whether the exemption process for religious employers to opt out of the requirement that health plans cover contraception for women at no cost imposed a substantial burden on such employers and violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
The court limited oral arguments to the following question:
|
In a unanimous decision issued May 15, 2016, the court vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case back down for further consideration.
Background
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, required health plans to cover preventive services at no cost to enrollees. Included in these preventive services are 18 types of contraception for women. Nonprofit religious organizations were exempt from this requirement, and in a previous case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that this exemption should apply to closely-held religious for-profit corporations as well.[2]
The Obama administration devised an accommodation for these exempt employers that was intended to preserve their religious freedom while still maintaining employees' access to free contraception. The accommodation required religious employers to "notify the government that they are opting out of providing birth-control insurance coverage on religious grounds" to receive an exemption. The government then makes separate arrangements with insurance companies to provide the coverage.[3]
However, some religious organizations objected to the accommodation, arguing that they would still be complicit in providing contraception to their employees. On May 21, 2012, 43 different Catholic organizations filed 12 lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services.[4]
Some of the cases heard by federal appellate courts included the following:[5]
- Zubik v. Burwell
- Priests for Life v. Burwell
- East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell
- Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell
- Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell
- Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell
- Geneva College v. Burwell
- Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. Burwell
- Burwell v. Dordt College
- Burwell v. CNS International Ministries
While most of the appellate courts found in favor of the government, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled in favor of the religious organizations. To resolve this discrepancy, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 5, 2015 and oral arguments were heard on March 22, 2016.[6]
The petitioners argued that submitting the opt out document violates their right to religious freedom and requires them to "maintain an objectionable contractual relationship." The petitioner's writ of certiorari argued that "It is undisputed that Petitioners sincerely believe that taking these actions would make them complicit in sin. And it is equally undisputed that if Petitioners refuse to take these actions, they will incur ruinous penalties."[7]
The respondents argued that the choice to opt out of providing birth control to employees respects the religious freedom of employers and a woman's access to healthcare. They argued that "In our pluralistic society, that sort of substitution of obligations is an appropriate means of accommodating religious objectors while also protecting important interests of third parties, such as women's interest in full and equal health coverage."[8]
Decision
With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, legal journalists speculated that the court would deliver a split opinion in Zubik v. Burwell. On March 29, the Supreme Court issued an order asking all the parties in the lawsuit to file additional briefs by April 20. In the briefs, the parties were to discuss additional ways in which employees of the religious organizations could obtain contraceptive coverage without the involvement of the organizations themselves. The request renewed speculation of a split court.[9][10][11][12]
On May 15, 2016, the court issued a unanimous decision vacating the judgments of the lower courts and remanding the cases back for further consideration. From the supplemental briefs submitted by both parties, the justices determined that a solution could be reached that would provide employees with contraception coverage without action on the part of their religious employers.[6]
| “ | In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that it reached no decision on the merits of the case, and nothing in the opinion should be construed as affecting the ability of the government to ensure that employees covered by the insurance plans at issue receive full contraceptive coverage.[13] | ” |
| —Oyez, a project by the Chicago-Kent College of Law[6] | ||
The opinion did not set a precedent, leaving open the possibility for the case to return to the Supreme Court.[14]
Aftermath: Trump administration regulations
On October 6, 2017, the Trump administration published rules in the Federal Register stating that any employer or insurer could stop following the contraception mandate if they had moral or religious objections to providing birth control to employees. Under the new rules, "employers will not have to file anything with the government to stop offering the birth-control coverage; instead, they simply have to notify their employees of the decision," according to The Hill. The rule took effect immediately.[15][16][17]
Speaking about the rules, a Department of Health and Human Services official said, "We should have space for organizations to live out their religious ideas and not face discrimination because of their religious ideas. That was the case beforehand, and that ends today."[15]
Mark Rienzi, lead attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor, said that Little Sisters would still seek final relief in court. On October 16, 2017, Bishop David Zubik announced that the 70 religious organizations involved in Zubik v. Burwell had reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, stating that as part of the settlement, Catholic and other religious organizations would no longer be "required to facilitate insurance coverage or practices that are morally unacceptable to them." The announcement also stated, "[T]his agreement does not prohibit the government from providing contraceptives. But it does prohibit the government and others from using church-related insurance plans as a conduit for such coverage." The settlement formally resolved Zubik v. Burwell. [18][19][20]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Zubik Burwell contraception. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
- Justia, "Zubik v. Burwell" (text of SCOTUS opinion)
- Oyez, "Zubik v. Burwell"
- SCOTUSblog coverage of Zubik v. Burwell
- Oyez, "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores"
Footnotes
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Zubik v. Burwell," accessed November 9, 2015
- ↑ Oyez, "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores," accessed May 19, 2016
- ↑ NPR, "Supreme Court To Take Up Another Challenge To Obamacare," accessed November 14, 2015
- ↑ Fox News, "Catholic Organizations Across Country File Suit Against Contraception Mandate," May 21, 2012
- ↑ Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "HHS Mandate Information Central," accessed May 19, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Oyez, "Zubik v. Burwell," accessed May 19, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Writ of Certiorari: Zubik v. Burwell," accessed November 15, 2015
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Brief for the respondents in opposition," accessed November 15, 2015
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Miscellaneous Order," March 29, 2016
- ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Court Seeks New Way to Decide Birth Control Cases," March 29, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate," March 23, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Reality of a divided Supreme Court: A split decision and a search for compromise," March 29, 2016
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Business Insider, "Contraceptive mandate likely on path back to Supreme Court," May 17, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 The Hill, "Trump officials roll back birth-control mandate," October 6, 2017
- ↑ FederalRegister.gov, "Religious Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act," October 6, 2017
- ↑ FederalRegister.gov, "Moral Exemptions and Accommodations for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act," October 6, 2017
- ↑ Crux, "Trump administration issues new contraceptive mandate with greater religious exemptions," October 6, 2017
- ↑ Pittsburgh Catholic, "Bishop Zubik on resolution of Zubik v. Burwell," October 20, 2017
- ↑ Catholic Standard, "Cardinal Wuerl: Archdiocese Challenge to HHS Mandate Settled," October 16, 2017
