Catholic Health Care Sys. v. Burwell
Headline: Court vacates and sends back a religious challenge to contraceptive coverage rules, allowing the Government to ensure cost-free contraceptives for covered women and barring penalties tied to a failure to give notice.
Holding: The Court vacated the lower-court judgment and sent the case back, ruling that in light of Zubik the Government can ensure cost-free FDA-approved contraceptives and may not impose penalties for failing to provide the notice.
- Allows Government to ensure cost-free FDA-approved contraceptives for covered women.
- Bars the Government from imposing taxes or penalties for failure to provide the notice.
- Sends the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration under Zubik.
Summary
Background
Religious organizations brought a challenge related to a federal rule about contraceptive coverage and told the Government they meet the requirements for a religious exemption. Lower courts and prior related opinions are part of the record, and the dispute concerns how the Government must ensure contraceptive access for women covered by those organizations’ health plans.
Reasoning
The Court granted review, vacated the lower-court judgment, and sent the case back to the appeals court in light of its decision in Zubik v. Burwell. The Court said nothing in Zubik or the lower courts’ opinions should prevent the Government from making sure women covered by petitioners’ plans obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives. The Court also said the Government may rely on petitioners’ notice that they claim an exemption to facilitate providing that coverage, and because the Government may rely on that notice it may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failing to provide the relevant notice.
Real world impact
As a practical matter, the ruling lets the Government proceed to secure cost-free contraceptive coverage for women covered by the challengers’ plans while the appeals court reconsiders the case. It also protects those religious challengers from taxes or penalties tied to not filing the specific notice. This order is a procedural disposition tied to Zubik and sends the matter back for further proceedings, so the outcome is not a final decision on the underlying merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, issued a concurrence agreeing with the grant, vacatur, 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?