Zubik v. Burwell

Last updated

Zubik v. Burwell
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 23, 2016
Decided May 16, 2016
Full case nameDavid A. Zubik et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docket no. 14-1418
Citations578 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1557; 194 L. Ed. 2d 696
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceSotomayor, joined by Ginsburg
Laws applied
Affordable Care Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. [1] On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Contents

Background

Federal law

EBSA Form 700, version as of January 1, 2014 EBSA-Form-700 January 2014.pdf
EBSA Form 700, version as of January 1, 2014

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy "neutral laws of general applicability" [lower-alpha 1] even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this", wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." [2] He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In 1993, the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's [lower-alpha 2] exercise of religion". [3] The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to redefine exercise of religion as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita in 2006.

Affordable Care Act

Most Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relies on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to specify what kinds of preventive care for women should be covered in certain employer-based health plans. The HRSA decided that all twenty contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be covered. [4] Employers that refuse are fined $100 per individual per day, [5] or they can replace their health coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax.

HHS exempted churches (including houses of worship, such as synagogues and mosques) and their integrated auxiliaries, associations of churches, and any religious order that engages exclusively in religious activity. These are the same groups exempt from filing IRS Form 990. Employers providing grandfathered plans (plans that have not had specific changes before March 23, 2010), and employers with fewer than 50 employees were also exempt. Other non-profit organizations that object to any required contraception coverage could file an EBSA form 700 with their insurance company notifying them of the non-profit's objection. The insurance company would then provide the contraceptive coverage directly to employees without any involvement of the employer, including any distribution of literature or extra payments by the employer. [6]

Initial litigation

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic religious order, runs over 25 homes for low-income elderly in the United States [7] and therefore is not automatically exempt from the contraceptive mandate. It objected to filing Form 700 because it believed that doing would make the order complicit in providing contraception, a sin under Catholic doctrine. On December 31, 2013, the day before the filing requirement was to come into effect, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary injunction to the Little Sisters of the Poor, allowing them to simply inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of their objections, pending resolution of the case. [8] [9] [10] Other religious institutions filed similar objections.

On February 15, 2012, Priests for Life v. HHS was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate on behalf of Priests for Life, a national, Catholic, pro-life organization based in New York City. The case was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block for lack of ripeness because the new compromise regulations were not yet finalized. [11] [12] [13]

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), closely held for-profit corporations are exempt from the contraceptive mandate, if they object on religious grounds, because the accommodation offered to objecting non-profits would be a less restrictive way to achieve the ACA's interest. [14]

On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to the approach it suggested as a less restrictive alternative in Hobby Lobby, where the plaintiffs would send an EBSA Form 700 to its insurance issuer, which would pay for the contraception. In an unsigned emergency injunction for Wheaton College in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying its insurance issuer, Wheaton can notify the government. Once notified, the government should notify the issuer. Wheaton believed that by transferring the obligation to cover contraceptives to its insurance issuer, it was triggering that obligation. The emergency injunction does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Wheaton's religious objection. The court said "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives." [15] In a 15-page dissent, joined by the other two female jurists on the court, Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority's reasoning and distinguished it from the situation with the Little Sisters of the Poor. [16] A revised version of EBSA Form 700, effective August 2014, says "[a]s an alternative to using this form, an eligible organization may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the eligible organization has a religious objection to providing coverage for all or a subset of contraceptive services..."

Eight appeals courts upheld the ACA mandate for non-church religious institutions. Only the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the other way, upholding the challenge by religious non-profit institutions in September 2015 in two cases, Sharpe Holdings v. HHS and Dordt College v. Burwell. [17]

Litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court

On November 6, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court consolidated seven cases, all challenges to the contraceptive mandate. [18] [19] The case is titled Zubik v. Burwell and the cases consolidated under that title and the Court of Appeals that issued the decision being appealed were: [20]

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were heard on March 23, 2016. Issues discussed included how and where to draw the line between exempt churches and other religious non-profits and whether the government was "hijacking" the insurance plans created by the non-profits to achieve the government's goals. Because of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February, only eight justices heard the arguments, raising the possibility of an equally divided court, which would leave the appeals court rulings in force in their respective jurisdictions. [1] [27] [28]

Supplemental briefing

On March 29 the Court directed the parties "to file supplemental briefs that address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners' employees through petitioners's insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees." The Court suggested a possible scheme where petitioners would obtain insurance without contraceptive coverage and "petitioners' insurance company, aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds, would separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners's health plan." [20] [29] Also, of particular interest to the court was the question raised in an amicus brief of conscientious objection suggesting that courts may not usurp the right of religious adherents to determine their own views regarding moral complicity. [30]

Ruling

On May 16, 2016, the Court issued a per curiam decision that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the cases to those courts for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs". [31] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues". [32] In a departure from the usual treatment of per curiam rulings, Chief Justice Roberts read the ruling aloud in court. [33] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases." [34] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case. She cited as an example the Eighth Circuit opinion in Sharpe Holdings, the only Court of Appeals decision that had upheld the position taken by the Zubik plaintiffs. [35]

Further litigation

On May 23 the Supreme Court returned two additional cases back to their respective Courts of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the filings in Zubik: Catholic Healthcare System v. Burwell (Second Circuit Court of Appeals) and Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals). [36]

On July 21 the Obama administration asked the Courts of Appeals considering the Zubik cases to allow 65 days for the government to seek advice from third parties on all aspects of the legal dispute, from technical and practical implementation issues to religious and legal insight. [37] It published a general appeal for comment and advice from "all interested stakeholders" in the Federal Register the next day. [38]

When Donald Trump took over as President in 2017, one of the first Executive Orders he enacted was to order the HHS to issue a ruling to allow for conscientious objections to the mandate, which was published in late 2017 and allowed for for-profit religious organizations to claim exemption from the mandate on religious or moral grounds. This led to numerous states pursuing further legal action on the new rules that culminated in another Supreme Court case, Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania , which was heard in May 2020. The Supreme Court upheld the rules on a 7–2 decision issued in July 2020. [39] [40] [41]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The meaning of "neutral law of general applicability" was elaborated by the court in 1993. (See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), at 531-547.)
  2. ↑ The Dictionary Act defines the word 'person' in any act of Congress to include corporations.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</span> 1993 United States Law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Catholic religious institute for women. It was founded by Jeanne Jugan. Having felt the need to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities, Jugan established the congregation to care for the elderly in 1839.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Priests for Life</span> American coalition of clergy working to end abortion and euthanasia

Priests for Life (PFL) is an anti-abortion organization based in Titusville, Florida. PFL functions as a network to promote and coordinate anti-abortion activism, especially among Roman Catholic priests and laymen, with the primary strategic goal of ending abortion and euthanasia and to spread the message of the Evangelium vitae encyclical, written by Pope John Paul II.

Becket Law, formerly the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is a non-profit public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C., that describes its mission as "defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths". Becket promotes accommodationism and is active in the judicial system, the media, and in education.

Conestoga Wood Specialties is a manufacturer of wood doors and components for kitchen, bath and furniture, based in East Earl, Pennsylvania. They have five factories, located in Washington, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, employing about 1,200 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Matheson Jr.</span> American judge (born 1953)

Scott Milne Matheson Jr. is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He has served on that court since 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This is a timeline of reproductive rights legislation, a chronological list of laws and legal decisions affecting human reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights pertaining to issues of reproduction and reproductive health. These rights may include some or all of the following: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to birth control, the right to access quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence. Reproductive rights may also include the right to receive education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization, abortion, and contraception, and protection from practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control movement in the United States</span> Social reform campaign beginning in 1914

The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign beginning in 1914 that aimed to increase the availability of contraception in the U.S. through education and legalization. The movement began in 1914 when a group of political radicals in New York City, led by Emma Goldman, Mary Dennett, and Margaret Sanger, became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced abortions brought to low-income women. Since contraception was considered to be obscene at the time, the activists targeted the Comstock laws, which prohibited distribution of any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail. Hoping to provoke a favorable legal decision, Sanger deliberately broke the law by distributing The Woman Rebel, a newsletter containing a discussion of contraception. In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, but the clinic was immediately shut down by police, and Sanger was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Birth control in the United States</span> History of birth control in the United States

Birth control in the United States is available in many forms. Some of the forms available at drugstores and some retail stores are male condoms, female condoms, sponges, spermicides, and over-the-counter emergency contraception. Forms available at pharmacies with a doctor's prescription or at doctor's offices are oral contraceptive pills, patches, vaginal rings, diaphragms, shots/injections, cervical caps, implantable rods, and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Sterilization procedures, including tubal ligations and vasectomies, are also performed.

A contraceptive mandate is a government regulation or law that requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts</span> 1993 state laws in the United States

State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are state laws based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that was passed almost unanimously by the U.S. Congress in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The laws mandate that religious liberty of individuals can only be limited by the "least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest". Originally, the federal law was intended to apply to federal, state, and local governments. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act only applies to the federal government but not states and other local municipalities within them. As a result, 21 states have passed their own RFRAs that apply to their individual state and local governments.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Paul Joseph Wieland is an American businessman and politician from the state of Missouri. A member of the Republican Party, Wieland represents the 22nd District in the Missouri State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EBSA Form 700</span> United States Department of Labor form

EBSA Form 700 is a form that the United States Government had required certain non-profit organizations to complete and submit, beginning January 1, 2014, in order to claim an exemption from the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. After the U.S. Supreme court issued temporary injunctions, preventing any penalty against some non-profit institutions who objected to filing the form, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new version of the form making it clear that organizations can, instead object by a letter.

California v. Texas, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving ongoing conflicts between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) over the ACA's contraceptive mandate. The ACA exempts nonprofit religious organizations from complying with the mandate, to which for-profit religious organizations objected.

References

  1. 1 2 Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate, Adam Liptak, New York Times, March 23, 2016
  2. ↑ Reynolds v. United States , 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (March 25, 2014). "Supreme Court Hears Cases on Contraception Rule". New York Times. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  4. ↑ "A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius". HHS.gov. Archived from the original on July 2, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  5. ↑ Mears, Bill (March 23, 2014). "Justices to hear 'Hobby Lobby' case on Obamacare birth control rule". CNN. Retrieved March 25, 2014.
  6. ↑ "High court worsens pain of Obamacare birth-control compromise". CNN. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  7. ↑ Little Sister Directory of Homes accessed March 27, 2016
  8. ↑ Bazelon, Emily (January 24, 2014). "Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?". Slate. Retrieved July 6, 2014.
  9. ↑ "Order in Pending Case : Little Sister of the Poor vs. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Servcies, et al" (PDF). Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  10. ↑ "Little Sister of the Poor vs. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Servcies, et al" (PDF). Becketfund.org. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  11. ↑ Jeffrey, Don (April 15, 2013). "Priests for Life's Contraceptive Mandate Suit Dismissed". Bloomberg.
  12. ↑ "Priests For Life, et al vs. U.S. Department of healthj and Human Services, et al" (PDF). Americanfreedomlawcenter.org. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  13. ↑ "Supreme Court to hear nuns' complaint on Obamacare contraceptive mandate - Christian News". Christian Today. November 8, 2015.
  14. ↑ Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
  15. ↑ Order in Pending Case, Wheaton College v. Bruwell, On Application for Injunction, July 3, 2014
  16. ↑ Liptak, Adam (July 3, 2014). "Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices". The New York Times. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
  17. ↑ Barnes, Robert (September 17, 2015). "Ruling sets up new review of religious objections to contraceptive mandate". Washington Post. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  18. ↑ "Court to hear birth-control challenges". SCOTUSblog. November 6, 2015.
  19. ↑ Ariane de Vogue (November 6, 2015). "Supreme Court to hear new challenge to Obamacare". CNN.
  20. 1 2 "Zubik v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog.
  21. ↑ "Geneva College v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  22. ↑ "East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  23. ↑ "Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 19, 2017.
  24. ↑ "Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  25. ↑ "Priests for Life v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  26. ↑ "Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  27. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (March 23, 2016). "Argument analysis: On new health care case, a single word may tell it all". Scotusblog.
  28. ↑ "Proceedings [Transcript]" (PDF). U.S. Supreme Court. March 23, 2016. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  29. ↑ Liptak, Asam (March 29, 2016). "Supreme Court Hints at Way to Avert Tie on Birth Control Mandate". New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  30. ↑ "DAVID A. ZUBIK, ET AL., Petitioners, V. SYLVIA BURWELL, ET AL., Respondents" (PDF). S3.amazonaws.com. Retrieved July 4, 2019.
  31. ↑ Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14–1418, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3, 5 (2016) (per curiam).
  32. ↑ Zubik, slip op. at 3-4.
  33. ↑ Mauro, Tony; Coyle, Martha (May 16, 2016). "Justices Tell Lower Courts to Craft Compromise for Contraceptive Insurance". National Law Journal. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
  34. ↑ Zubik, slip op. at 4.
  35. ↑ Zubik, slip op. at 2-3 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
  36. ↑ "remands two HHS challenges to lower courts 'in light of Zubik'". National Catholic Reporter. Catholic News Service. May 23, 2016. Retrieved May 24, 2016.
  37. ↑ Dennison, Lyle (July 22, 2016). "U.S. seeks nationwide advice on birth-control dispute". Constitution Daily. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  38. ↑ "Coverage for Contraceptive Services". Federal Register. 81 (141): 47741–5. July 22, 2016. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  39. ↑ Barnes, Robert (July 8, 2020). "Supreme Court says employers may opt out of Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate over religious, moral objections". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 8, 2020.
  40. ↑ Wolf, Richard (July 8, 2020). "Supreme Court allows religious, moral exemptions for employers opposed to contraceptives". USA Today. Archived from the original on October 6, 2020. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
  41. ↑ "BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 7-2 in Favor of Little Sisters of the Poor in ObamaCare Contraception Case". Fox News. Space Coast Daily.com. July 8, 2020. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved October 9, 2020.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.