Zubik v. Burwell - 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016)

Rule:

Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”

Facts:

Petitioners were primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations required petitioners to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners would submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Petitioners alleged that submitting the notice substantially burdened the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option was feasible.

Issue:

Did the Patient Protection and Care Act of 2010 requirement substantially burden the exercise of petitioners’ religion?

Answer:

No decision; the case was remanded.

Conclusion:

In light of positions asserted in supplemental briefs submitted after oral argument concerning question whether Patient Protection and Care Act of 2010 requirement violated Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.S. § 2000bb et seq.), the cases were remanded for further consideration in order to afford the parties an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodated the organizations’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by their health plans received full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage. The Court did not decide whether the organizations' religious exercise had been substantially burdened, whether the government had a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations were the least restrictive means of serving that interest.