Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colo., Non-Profit Corp. v. Sebelius
Headline: Court temporarily blocks enforcement of ACA contraceptive coverage rules against nonprofit religious employers who object, allowing them to avoid providing contraceptive coverage while their appeal proceeds.
Holding: The Court enjoins enforcement of the ACA contraceptive coverage rules against nonprofit employers that notify HHS in writing of their religious objection, allows notification without the Government form or third-party copies, and preserves that injunction during the appeal.
- Allows certain nonprofit religious employers to avoid providing contraceptive coverage temporarily.
- Prevents government enforcement of challenged ACA provisions against qualifying employers while appeal proceeds.
- Waives the Government’s form and third-party notice requirement for these employers.
Summary
Background
A group of nonprofit organizations that present themselves as religious asked the Court for emergency relief after objecting to rules that require coverage for contraceptive services. They applied to Justice Sotomayor, and the request was referred to the full Court. The dispute began because these employers do not want to provide contraceptive coverage and they are pursuing an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the Government may enforce the challenged parts of the health care law against these employers while their appeal is pending. The Court ordered that if the employers notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that they are nonprofit religious organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage, the Government may not enforce the challenged provisions against them during the appeal. The Court also said the employers do not have to use the Government’s prescribed form and do not have to send notices to third-party administrators. The order was issued based on the circumstances before the Court and was not meant to say anything about the final merits of the legal dispute.
Real world impact
Practically, certain nonprofit religious employers who follow the Court’s instruction can avoid enforcement of contraceptive coverage rules for now. The protection lasts only while the appeal is decided, so this is a temporary change. The Court’s statement that it did not rule on the merits means the underlying legal question could still be decided differently later.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?