Zubik v. Burwell, s. 14–1418
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 194 L.Ed.2d 696,136 S.Ct. 1557 |
| Parties | David A. ZUBIK, et al., petitioners v. Sylvia BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. Priests for Life, et al., petitioners v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, et al., petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. East Texas Baptist University, et al., petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al., petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. Southern Nazarene University, et al., petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. Geneva College, petitioner v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. |
| Docket Number | 15–119,Nos. 14–1418,15–191.,14–1453,15–105,14–1505,15–35,s. 14–1418 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 2016 |
136 S.Ct. 1557
194 L.Ed.2d 696
David A. ZUBIK, et al., petitioners
v.
Sylvia BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Priests for Life, et al., petitioners
v.
Department of Health and Human Services, et al.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, et al., petitioners
v.
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
East Texas Baptist University, et al., petitioners
v.
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al., petitioners
v.
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Southern Nazarene University, et al., petitioners
v.
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Geneva College, petitioner
v.
Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Nos. 14–1418
14–1453
14–1505
15–35
15–105
15–119
15–191.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 16, 2016.
Noel J. Francisco, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Paul M. Pohl, John D. Goetz, Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., Ira M. Karoll, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Matthew A. Kairis, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, for petitioners in Nos. 14–1418 and 14–1505.
Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Robert M. Bernstein, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, David A. Cortman, Gregory S. Baylor, Jordan W. Lorence, Kevin H. Theriot, Matthew S. Bowman, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, for petitioners in Nos. 15–119 and 15–191.
Robert J. Muise, David Yerushalmi, American Freedom Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, for petitioner in Nos. 14–1453.
Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Adèle Auxier Keim, Daniel H. Blomberg, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, and petitioners in No. 15–105.
Kenneth R. Wynne, Wynne & Wynne LLP, Houston, TX, for Westminster Theological Seminary.
David A. Cortman, Gregory S. Baylor, Jordan W. Lorence, Kevin H. Theriot, Matthew S. Bowman, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, for petitioners in Nos. 15–119 and 15–191.
Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, PA, for Geneva College.
Carl C. Scherz, Laurence A. Hansen, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, Kevin C. Walsh, Richmond, VA, for petitioners in No. 15–105.
Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Robert M. Bernstein, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Adèle Auxier Keim, Daniel H. Blomberg, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist, University, and petitioners in No. 15–105.
Paul M. Pohl, John D. Goetz, Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., Ira M. Karoll, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Robert J. Muise, David Yerushalmi, American Freedom, Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Noel J. Francisco, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for petitioners.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Adam C. Jed, Patrick G. Nemeroff, Megan Barbero, Joshua Salzman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners are primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations require petitioners to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Petitioners allege that submitting this notice substantially burdens the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq .
Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing "whether contraceptive
coverage could be provided to petitioners' employees, through petitioners' insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners." Post, p. 1561. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they "need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Azar, No. 18-15144
...challenged the amended accommodation as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 1559, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (per curiam). The actions reached the Supreme Court, but, instead of deciding the merits of the claims, the Sup......
-
California v. Health & Human Servs., Case No.17–cv–05783–HSG
...interest in ensuring access to such coverage for women. See Supplemental Br. for Resp'ts at 1, Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (per curiam) ( No. 14-1418), 2016 WL 1445915, at *1 (explaining that rules in existence in April 2016 "further[ed] the comp......
-
California v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 19-15072
...petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage." Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1557, 1560, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court "express[ed] no view on the merits of the cases," a......
-
Commonwealth v. President United States, Nos. 17-3752
...to covering contraceptive services] consistent with the Wheaton interim order." Id. at 41,323.In Zubik v. Burwell, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1557, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (per curiam), the Supreme Court addressed the petitioners' assertions that "submitting [the Accommodation] notice substan......
-
State v. Azar, No. 18-15144
...challenged the amended accommodation as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 1559, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (per curiam). The actions reached the Supreme Court, but, instead of deciding the merits of the claims, the Sup......
-
California v. Health & Human Servs., Case No.17–cv–05783–HSG
...interest in ensuring access to such coverage for women. See Supplemental Br. for Resp'ts at 1, Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (per curiam) ( No. 14-1418), 2016 WL 1445915, at *1 (explaining that rules in existence in April 2016 "further[ed] the comp......
-
Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Sec'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 16-1275
...employers. See 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(b)–(c) ; 78 Fed. Reg. 39,870, 39,874–39,875 (July 2, 2013) ; Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 1559, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016).Two years after we upheld this opt-out accommodation in 867 F.3d 343 Geneva College v. Secretary United States Depar......
-
United States v. Christie, No. 14-10233
...by the challenger, but it must do both through the evidence presented in the record.”); see also Zubik v. Burwell , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1557, 1560, 194 L.Ed.2d 696 (2016) (vacating and remanding cases to lower courts for fresh RFRA analysis “[i]n light of the positions asserted by the ......
-
REMARKS TO THE 2020 FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION.
...See Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151, 1167 (10th Cir. 2015), vacated sub nom. Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016); 26 U.S.C. [section] 4980D(b)(1) (imposing fine of $100 per employee per day for employers offering health plans that do not meet stat......