Hobby Lobby, the Sequel: Coming Soon to SCOTUS

The high court agreed to hear another challenge to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster
Nov. 6, 2015, 1:41 p.m.

The Su­preme Court will take an­oth­er crack at Obama­care’s con­tra­cep­tion man­date.

The court agreed Fri­day to hear an­oth­er law­suit chal­len­ging the birth-con­trol re­quire­ment, this one filed by re­li­gious non­profits. Roughly two years after the Court rolled back the con­tra­cep­tion man­date in Hobby Lobby v. Bur­well, the non­profits say the court needs to go a step fur­ther.

The con­tra­cep­tion man­date isn’t par­tic­u­larly in­ter­twined with the rest of Obama­care, so an­oth­er rul­ing against it wouldn’t threaten the law as a whole. But the pro­vi­sion has be­come a polit­ic­al light­ning rod, pit­ting wo­men’s-health ad­voc­ates against re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tions.

And Fri­day’s de­cision to hear the con­tra­cep­tion case might only be the be­gin­ning. The Court is widely ex­pec­ted to take up an abor­tion case later this term—set­ting the stage for high-pro­file rul­ings on both abor­tion and con­tra­cep­tion, just months be­fore the 2016 elec­tions.

The con­tra­cep­tion man­date

Obama­care re­quires most em­ploy­ers to cov­er cer­tain pre­vent­ive ser­vices in their em­ploy­ees’ health care plans, without cost-shar­ing like a co-pay or de­duct­ible. And, based on the re­com­mend­a­tion of an ex­pert sci­entif­ic pan­el, the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment in­cluded all Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion-ap­proved con­tra­cept­ives in the defin­i­tion of pre­vent­ive ser­vices.

Churches and houses of wor­ship are ex­empt from the man­date. Re­li­gious-af­fil­i­ated em­ploy­ers—like the non­profits in this case—have a middle ground. They don’t have to dir­ectly provide cov­er­age for con­tra­cep­tion in their health care plans. And they don’t have to pay for that cov­er­age, either.

In­stead, they’re re­quired to fill out a form re­gis­ter­ing their ob­jec­tions to birth con­trol, and the duty for provid­ing it shifts to their in­sur­ance com­pan­ies.

The Little Sis­ters’ ob­jec­tion

A group of re­li­gious non­profits, led by the Little Sis­ters of the Poor, an or­gan­iz­a­tion of nuns, says the work­around for re­li­gious-af­fil­i­ated em­ploy­ers doesn’t go far enough.

They ob­ject to filling out the form that re­gisters their re­li­gious ob­jec­tions to con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age. Be­cause they have to fill out that form, they say, HHS is mak­ing them par­ti­cip­ate in a pro­cess that still ends with their em­ploy­ees’ health care plans in­clud­ing con­tra­cep­tion.

And they say that’s just as ob­jec­tion­able as provid­ing it dir­ectly. They want to be ex­emp­ted en­tirely from the man­date.

“It is all well and good for HHS to think it has threaded the needle and found a way for re­li­gious non­profits to com­ply with the man­date without vi­ol­at­ing their re­li­gious be­liefs, but ul­ti­mately it is for the re­li­gious ad­her­ent to de­term­ine how much fa­cil­it­a­tion or com­pli­city is too much,” the Little Sis­ters said in a brief to the high court.

How this is dif­fer­ent from Hobby Lobby

Hobby Lobby v. Bur­well, the 2014 case in which the Court weakened the con­tra­cep­tion man­date, was slightly dif­fer­ent from today’s chal­lenge. That case dealt with for-profit com­pan­ies rather than non­profits. Un­til the Court in­ter­vened, for-profit com­pan­ies had to provide con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age them­selves; they didn’t have ac­cess to the “ac­com­mod­a­tion” that lets non­profits shift the bur­den to their in­sur­ance com­pan­ies.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion ar­gues that, by cre­at­ing a dif­fer­ent pro­cess for re­li­gious non­profits, it has already tailored the con­tra­cep­tion man­date so that it will im­pose the smal­lest pos­sible bur­den on re­li­gious ex­er­cise—and that’s what the Re­li­gious Free­dom Res­tor­a­tion Act re­quires.

Not sur­pris­ingly, the Little Sis­ters dis­agree. They ar­gue that the two cases are ex­tremely sim­il­ar, and that courts are simply mis­ap­ply­ing the ob­vi­ous point of Hobby Lobby.

“In­deed, the bur­den here is not just ana­log­ous to the bur­den in Hobby Lobby; it is identic­al,” the Little Sis­ters wrote in their brief.

Or­al ar­gu­ments have not yet been sched­uled and, as al­ways, the Court did not ex­plain why it took the case.

What We're Following See More »
ON VERMONT RADIO
Bernie Sanders Declares Bid
1 hours ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
HE PLANNED TO LEAVE ONCE BARR WAS CONFIRMED
Rosenstein to Leave DOJ in March
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
SUIT LED BY CALIFORNIA AG BECERRA
Sixteen States Sue Trump over Emergency Declaration
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A coalition of 16 states filed a federal lawsuit Monday to block President Trump’s plan to build a border wall without permission from Congress, arguing that the president’s decision to declare a national emergency is unconstitutional. The lawsuit, brought by states with Democratic governors — except one, Maryland — seeks a preliminary injunction that would prevent the president from acting on his emergency declaration while the case plays out in the courts."

Source:
CITES FAMILY CONCERNS
Nauert Withdraws from Consideration as U.N. Ambassador
11 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"President Trump’s pick to serve as ambassador to the United Nations withdrew from consideration on Saturday, citing family concerns. His intended nominee, Heather Nauert, a spokeswoman at the State Department since 2017, said in a statement that 'the past two months have been grueling for my family and therefore it is in the best interest of my family that I withdraw my name from consideration.' Ms. Nauert dropped from the running because she had a nanny who was in the United States legally but did not have the proper work visa, according to people familiar with the process."

Source:
AVOIDS SHUTDOWN WITH A FEW HOURS TO SPARE
Trump Signs Border Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

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