Supreme Court Leaves Zubik v. Burwell Case to Lower Courts

May 17, 2016 - On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously called for the lower courts to rule on the Zubik v. Burwell case and to find a compromise. This particular court case argues on whether employers, specifically religious nonprofit groups, should be required under the Affordable Care Act to provide coverage among female workers seeking contraception.

The reason that the Supreme Court had to the ruling down to the lower courts, according to The New York Times, is due to the fact that there are only eight members sitting on the Supreme Court currently and it is vital to avoid a deadlock decision.

When the Zubik v. Burwell case was first heard in March, The Supreme Court had ordered for additional briefs from the two parties that could lead to a compromise. The Supreme Court justices have stated that the briefs suggest a compromise could be possible but needed to be reached through the lower courts.

“Today’s opinion does only what it says it does: ‘affords an opportunity’ for the parties and courts of appeals to reconsider the parties’ arguments in light of petitioner's’ new articulation of their religious objection and the government’s clarification about what the existing regulations accomplish, how they might be amended and what such an amendment would sacrifice,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in the final decision. “As enlightened by the parties’ new submissions, the courts of appeals remain free to reach the same conclusion or a different one on each of the questions presented by these cases.”

Previously, an accommodation was granted for religious groups to provide information and file paperwork with insurers or the government in order to be exempted from paying for coverage related to contraception. However, the Zubik v. Burwell case argues that proceeding with their objection and filing documents for the exemption “would make them complicit in conduct that violated their faith.”

“Instead of writing contraceptive coverage into their plans themselves, petitioners may comply by taking government prescribed actions that empower their insurers or plan administrators to use their own plan infrastructure to provide the coverage,” one brief on the behalf of the petitioners stated.

“The existence of that alternative mechanism for compliance might matter if petitioners’ religious objections were confined to directing and paying for the inclusion of contraceptive coverage in their plans. But, as the government does not dispute, petitioners also sincerely object to being forced to facilitate access to contraceptives and abortifacients through their own plans.”

The Zubik v. Burwell case claims that nonprofit religious groups should receive an immediate exemption from the contraception coverage clauses much like the accommodation granted to houses of worship including synagogues, churches, or mosques.

The groups sued on the claim that the paperwork required for an exemption violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. While some religious groups object to all forms of contraception in this court case, others only find particular kinds harmful to their faith such as intrauterine devices and Plan B pills, claiming that these birth control options are similar to abortion.

“Access to birth control is an issue that is top of mind for women and families across the country. When a woman is able to access contraception, she can take control of her own life and plan her family when and how she chooses,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a public statement.

“In punting today, the Supreme Court only forces women and families to wait longer to learn who in this country has the ‘right’ to interfere with a woman’s personal healthcare decisions. Is it her boss, or is it her decision alone? Also, the court’s decision is premised on both parties’ inclination to ‘compromise,’ which is not something we have seen from the anti-choice movement in a very long time.”

“It’s 2016. Most voters agree that women must be empowered to make our own decisions about our bodies— it is not only a fundamental right but also vital to our economic success. No one should have to ask their boss for permission to get the health care they need, and women shouldn't have to wait even longer for the courts to make that clear.”

The Hill reports that lower courts will need to decide whether the mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring contraception coverage or filing for an exemption poses an undue burden on nonprofit religious groups.

The Supreme Court Justices are seeking for the lower courts to find a compromise in which any faith-based concerns are eliminated while women are still given the option to have their insurance cover the costs of contraception.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the main organization that filed the lawsuit, has stated that the decision made by the Supreme Court on Monday was an “important win.” Mark Rienzi, Attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor, has stated that he expects his side will “ultimately prevail in court.”

Any compromise that can be reached between the Obama administration and the religious nonprofit groups will have a significant impact on the future of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage provision. This will affect the way hospitals, universities, and other establishments affiliated with a religious background will operate their health insurance policies.

Dig Deeper:

Court Sides with Republicans on Affordable Care Act Provision

How the Affordable Care Act has Impacted Health Payers