Supreme Court Issues Stay in Obamacare Birth-Control Case

A nonprofit nursing home run by nuns will not have to pay a penalty for refusing to provide contraception coverage while a court case is pending.

A woman holds prescription contraceptives June 13, 2001 in Seattle, Washington. A federal judge ruled on that Bartell Drug Co., which operates 50 drug stores in the Seattle region must pay for prescription contraceptives, like the birth control pills shown here, for its female employees. The class-action suit was brought against Bartell Drug Co. by Jennifer Erickson, a 27 year-old pharmacist with the company, and may lead employers across the country to do the same.
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Clara Ritger
Jan. 24, 2014, 12:14 p.m.

The Su­preme Court on Fri­day gran­ted a tem­por­ary ex­emp­tion from Obama­care’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date to a re­li­gious non­profit or­gan­iz­a­tion that sued the ad­min­is­tra­tion on the grounds that the man­date vi­ol­ated its re­li­gious be­liefs.

The case of Little Sis­ters of the Poor, a nurs­ing home run by Cath­ol­ic nuns, will re­turn to the 10th U.S. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals in Den­ver for a rul­ing on the non­profit’s suit. But thanks to Fri­day’s rul­ing, Little Sis­ters will not be pen­al­ized for not cov­er­ing con­tra­cep­tion for its em­ploy­ees while the case is pending.

Justice So­nia So­to­may­or re­ferred the case to the full Court fol­low­ing her de­cision on New Year’s Eve to grant Little Sis­ters a pre­lim­in­ary in­junc­tion. Had So­to­may­or not gran­ted the re­prieve be­fore Jan. 1 — when the man­date took ef­fect — Little Sis­ters would have had to pay a pen­alty or com­ply.

“Com­pli­ance” with Obama­care’s man­date, however, does not mean Little Sis­ters would have had to pay for its em­ploy­ees’ con­tra­cep­tion.

As stated un­der the law, re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tions are ex­empt from the man­date re­quir­ing em­ploy­ers to in­clude con­tra­cept­ive ser­vices in em­ploy­ees’ health plans.

Be­cause Little Sis­ters is a re­li­giously af­fil­i­ated or­gan­iz­a­tion — rather than a re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tion, such as a church — it did not qual­i­fy for the ex­emp­tion.

In­stead, it was covered un­der a sep­ar­ate, com­prom­ise reg­u­la­tion the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is­sued al­most one year ago. Un­der that deal, Little Sis­ters — and thou­sands of oth­er sim­il­arly clas­si­fied or­gan­iz­a­tions who ob­jec­ted to the man­date on grounds that it vi­ol­ated their re­li­gious liberty — would have to sign a form in­dic­at­ing that they ob­jec­ted to provid­ing con­tra­cep­tion on re­li­gious grounds. In ex­change, they would not be pen­al­ized for fail­ing to meet the man­date, be­cause the in­sur­ance com­pany would in­stead pay for the con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age for their em­ploy­ees.

Little Sis­ters ar­gues that by sign­ing the form that “trig­gers the start of cov­er­age,” they are com­pli­cit in the act of provid­ing con­tra­cep­tion. “In good con­science, they can­not do that,” wrote the law­yers for the Beck­et Fund for Re­li­gious Liberty, the firm rep­res­ent­ing Little Sis­ters. “So the ‘ac­com­mod­a­tion’ still vi­ol­ates their re­li­gious be­liefs.”

In Decem­ber, the Den­ver ap­pel­late court de­clined to grant a pre­lim­in­ary in­junc­tion, judging that the Little Sis­ters “reads too much in­to the lan­guage of the form, which re­quires only that the in­di­vidu­al sign­ing it cer­ti­fy that her or­gan­iz­a­tion op­poses provid­ing con­tra­cept­ive cov­er­age.”

After Little Sis­ters filed an emer­gency ap­peal to the Su­preme Court, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion had hoped the justices would agree, but its de­feat Fri­day may only be tem­por­ary: The Court stressed it was not rul­ing on the mer­its of Little Sis­ters’ case in is­su­ing the de­cision to con­tin­ue the stay.

While the Su­preme Court won’t be tak­ing up the Little Sis­ters case, it is sched­uled to re­view a claim by for-profit com­pan­ies with re­li­gious ob­jec­tions to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date on March 25, a de­bate which will re­quire the Court to re­view wheth­er cor­por­a­tions First Amend­ment rights — ex­ten­ded through the Cit­izens United de­cision — in­clude re­li­gious rights.

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Statehood, Metro Come Up as Bowser Meets Trump
2 minutes ago
THE LATEST

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser met with Donald Trump this morning in Manhattan, with statehood and the Metro system on the agenda. “We talked about the things that are important to Washingtonians, and certainly becoming the 51st state is one of them," she said after the meeting. She also made the point that the District is “not dependent on the federal government for our funds," and brought up funding for Metro. She told reporters that Trump is a fan of D.C.

Source:
EVENT IN NC
Mattis Gets the Official Nod Tonight
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
LOWER COURT TO DETERMINE NEW DAMAGES
SCOTUS Sides with Samsung Over Apple
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with smartphone maker Samsung in its high-profile patent dispute with Apple over design of the iPhone. The justices said Samsung may not be required to pay all the profits it earned from 11 phone models because the features at issue are only a tiny part of the devices. Apple had won a $399 million judgment against Samsung for copying parts of the iPhone's patented design, but the case now returns to a lower court to decide what Samsung must pay."

Source:
AFRAID OF BUDGET CUTS
Pentagon Hid Evidence of Waste
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post."

Source:
TRUMP IS “NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE OFFICE”
Texas GOP Elector Won’t Cast Vote For Trump
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Christopher Suprun, a GOP elector from Texas, announced in an op-ed for The New York Times that he will not cast his vote in the electoral college for Donald Trump. This one vote will not keep Trump from getting to the 270 necessary to secure an electoral victory, but stands as a strong statement of rebuke. "I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office," Suprun wrote.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login