Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell

2016-05-16
Share:

Headline: Court sends a contraception dispute back to the lower court, allows government to keep ensuring no-cost contraceptives for women, and protects religious objectors from penalties while the legal fight continues.

Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case in light of Zubik, allowing the Government to rely on petitioners' notice and barring penalties for not providing that notice.

Real World Impact:
  • Allows government to continue ensuring no-cost contraceptives for covered women.
  • Prevents taxes or penalties on objecting groups for failing to provide the notice.
  • Keeps the dispute open for further review rather than issuing a final ruling.
Topics: contraceptive coverage, religious objections, health insurance, women's health

Summary

Background

A group that controls health plans and says it qualifies for a religious exemption challenged the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage. The dispute reached the Supreme Court after lower courts issued opinions and orders, and the parties asked the high court to review the matter.

Reasoning

The Court granted review, set aside the lower-court judgment, and sent the case back to the appeals court in light of its earlier decision in Zubik v. Burwell. The opinion says the Government may rely on the notice the objecting groups provided to help ensure women covered by those plans can obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives. The Court also held that the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on the objecting groups for failing to provide the particular notice at issue.

Real world impact

Women covered by the objecting groups’ health plans can continue to be eligible for no-cost contraceptive coverage while the case is reconsidered. Religious objectors get temporary protection from taxes or penalties tied to the notice dispute. Because the Supreme Court vacated and remanded rather than issuing a final merits ruling, the outcome could still change on further review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, explicitly concurred in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand for the reasons explained in Zubik, reinforcing the Court’s approach in that earlier opinion.

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