Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. CNS Int'l Ministries

2016-05-16
Share:

Headline: Court vacates and remands case about contraceptive coverage and religious exemptions, allowing the Government to rely on exemption notices and barring penalties for organizations that fail to provide the contested notice.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Lets the Government use organizations’ exemption notice to arrange contraceptive coverage.
  • Prevents the Government from imposing taxes or penalties for failing to provide the contested notice.
  • Affects women covered by these plans and organizations claiming religious exemptions.
Topics: contraceptive coverage, religious exemptions, health insurance, women's health

Summary

Background

A group of organizations that provide health plans for women challenged a federal rule requiring contraceptive coverage, saying they qualify for a religious exemption. Lower courts issued opinions, and the case reached the Supreme Court after those rulings. The organizations told the Government that they meet the exemption requirements and asked the Court to review whether the Government could require them to provide notice or face penalties.

Reasoning

The Court granted review, vacated the lower-court judgment, and sent the case back to the appeals court for further consideration in light of Zubik v. Burwell. The opinion stated that nothing in Zubik or in the lower-court opinions prevents the Government from ensuring that women covered by these plans obtain, without cost, FDA-approved contraceptives. The Court also explained that because the organizations notified the Government that they meet the requirements for a religious exemption, the Government may rely on that notice and may not impose taxes or penalties on the organizations for failing to provide the contested notice.

Real world impact

This ruling affects women covered by these health plans, the organizations claiming religious exemption, and federal agencies overseeing contraceptive coverage. The Government may use the organizations’ notice to facilitate coverage without taxing or penalizing those organizations, while the appeals court will reconsider the case consistent with Zubik. Because this order simply vacates and sends the case back for further consideration, it is not a final decision on the merits and the legal dispute could change on further review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurrence agreeing with the grant-vacate-and-remand action and referring to the reasoning in Zubik for support.

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?

Related Cases