Grace Sch. v. Burwell

2016-05-16
Share:

Headline: Court vacates and sends back cases about religious objections to no-cost contraceptive coverage, allowing the Government to rely on employers’ notice so women keep access while petitioners avoid penalties.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Lets the Government ensure women receive no-cost FDA-approved contraceptives
  • Prevents the Government from imposing taxes or penalties on petitioners for missing the contraceptive notice
  • Sends the dispute back to the appeals court for further review under Zubik
Topics: contraceptive coverage, religious exemptions, employer health plans, women's health

Summary

Background

A group challenging contraceptive coverage rules told the Government they qualify for a religious exemption and sued after lower courts ruled against them. The dispute involves whether organizations that cover people under their health plans must provide notice or facilitate free contraceptive coverage for women covered by those plans.

Reasoning

The Court agreed to review the matter, set aside the Seventh Circuit’s decision, and sent the case back to that appeals court in light of the Court’s decision in Zubik v. Burwell. The opinion explains that nothing in Zubik or the lower-court orders prevents the Government from making sure women covered by the petitioners’ plans obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives. The Court also noted petitioners told the Government they meet the requirements for a religious exemption and said the Government may rely on that notice.

Real world impact

Because the Government may treat the petitioners’ notice as sufficient, it may use that notice to arrange contraceptive coverage and may not impose taxes or penalties on the petitioners for failing to provide the specific notice at issue. The ruling sends the case back to the appeals court for further proceedings under the Zubik framework, so the outcome is not a final decision resolving all substantive questions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, wrote separately to agree with the decision to grant, vacate, and send the case back, and she endorsed the reasoning explained in Zubik v. Burwell.

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