Priests for Life v. Burwell

Consolidated with:

• Zubik v. Burwell
• Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell
• Geneva College v. Burwell
• Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell
• East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell
• Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the Scholars of Religious Liberty, Sarah Barringer Gordon, et al., in support of the respondents in this case.

Holding: Because both the Obama administration and the religious non-profits, colleges, and schools challenging the accommodation offered to those who object to complying with the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate confirm that contraceptive coverage could be provided to the challengers’ female employees, through the challengers’ insurance companies, without any notice from the challengers, the decisions of the courts of appeals rejecting the challenge are vacated and remanded. 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 the challengers’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by the challengers’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on May 16, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Symposium: The future of accommodation (Rick Garnett)
• Symposium: Punting on substantial religious burden, the Supreme Court provides no guidance for future RFRA challenges to anti-discrimination laws (Caroline Mala Corbin)
• Symposium: Workers remain at risk post-Zubik v. Burwell (Leslie Griffin)
• Symposium: Zubik and the demands of justice (Nelson Tebbe, Micah Schwartzman, and Richard Schragger)
• Symposium: The return of Chief Justice Roberts (Erin Morrow Hawley)
• Symposium: Into the weeds (Chad Flanders)
• A “view” from the Courtroom: Something we can live with (Mark Walsh)
• Opinion analysis: A compromise, with real impact, on birth control (Lyle Denniston)
• Still a gap on Court's birth-control idea (Lyle Denniston)
• SCOTUS for law students: The Supreme Court’s contraceptive-mandate cases (Stephen Wermiel)
• Dueling responses to the Court's ACA birth-control idea (Lyle Denniston)
• Religious non-profits fully endorse Court's birth-control access idea (Lyle Denniston)
• U.S. would accept modest change on birth-control mandate -- warily (Lyle Denniston)
• Court seeks new way to decide birth-control cases (Lyle Denniston)
• A "view" from the Courtroom: Sister Act (Mark Walsh)
• Argument analysis: On new health care case, a single word may tell it all (Lyle Denniston)
• Argument preview: Historic fight over religion and birth control (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
• Symposium: Integrity, mission, and the Little Sisters of the Poor (Rick Garnett)
• Symposium: Women’s compelling need for contraception – met by insurers, not objecting employers (Marcia Greenberger)
• Symposium: The missing interest in the contraceptive mandate cases -- Catholic women (Leslie Griffin)
• Symposium: Religious opt-outs or religious vetoes? (Ira Lupu and Robert Tuttle)
• Symposium: Contraceptive mandate cases – why the Supreme Court will instruct lower federal courts to stop second-guessing religious beliefs (John Bursch)
• Symposium: Adjudicating “substantial” burdens (Frederick Gedicks)
• The legal fate of Obamacare: Round 4 (Lyle Denniston)
• Briefing schedule set for birth control cases (Lyle Denniston)
• Court to hear birth-control challenges (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)