Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc. v. Burwell
Headline: Religious-objection contraceptive dispute: Court grants review, vacates and remands in light of Zubik, preserves government’s ability to provide no-cost FDA-approved contraceptives and blocks penalties on objecting employers.
Holding: The Court granted review, vacated the lower-court judgment, and remanded in light of Zubik, allowing the Government to rely on religious-objection notices and prohibiting penalties on those objectors.
- Keeps Government able to provide free FDA-approved contraceptives to covered women.
- Prevents taxes or penalties on employers who give religious-objection notice.
- Allows Government to rely on objectors’ notice to facilitate coverage.
Summary
Background
A group of parties that object on religious grounds challenged requirements tied to health plans and contraceptive coverage. The lower courts issued opinions and orders, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court for review. The dispute centers on how the Government must ensure that women covered by these plans get contraceptive care without cost while respecting asserted religious objections.
Reasoning
The Court granted the petition, vacated the judgment below, and sent the case back to the appeals court in light of its decision in Zubik v. Burwell. The Court made clear that nothing in Zubik or the lower courts’ orders should interfere with the Government’s ability to make sure women obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives. The opinion notes that the parties opposing the contraceptive requirement told the Government they believe they qualify for a religious exemption, and therefore the Government may rely on that notice.
Real world impact
Because the Government may rely on the religious-objection notice, it may not impose taxes or other penalties on those objecting parties for failing to provide the specific notice at issue. The ruling preserves the Government’s practical ability to arrange no-cost contraceptive coverage for affected women while the appeals court reconsider the case under Zubik, so the outcome is not a final resolution on the merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurrence agreeing with the decision to grant, vacate, and remand for the reasons given in Zubik.
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?