Zubik v. Burwell

• Decision Date: 16 May 2016
• Docket Number: 15–191.,14–1453,15–105,14–1505,15–35,15–119,s. 14–1418
• Citation: 136 S.Ct. 1557,578 U.S. 403,194 L.Ed.2d 696
• 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.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

578 U.S. 403

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 contraception," even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures "for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court's order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage." Supplemental Brief for Respondents 14–15.

In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits. Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners' health plans "receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage." Id., at 1. We anticipate that the Courts of Appeals will allow the parties sufficient time to resolve any outstanding issues between them.

The Court finds the foregoing approach more suitable than addressing the significantly clarified views of the parties in the first instance. Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court's involvement at this point to resolve them. This Court has taken similar action in other cases in the past. See, e.g., Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 42, 43, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 587 (2011) (per curiam ) (vacating and remanding for the Second Circuit to "address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of [a] new factual development, and—if necessary—proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling"); Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131, 132, 130 S.Ct. 1235, 175 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2010) (per curiam ) (vacating and remanding for the D.C. Circuit to "determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments"); Villarreal v. United States, 572 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1939, 188 L.Ed.2d 957 (2014) (vacating and remanding to the Fifth Circuit "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States").

The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners' religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.

Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners' health plans "obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives." Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U.S. ––––, ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 2807, 189 L.Ed.2d 856 (2014). Through this litigation, petitioners have made the Government aware of their view that they meet "the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds." Id., at ––––, 134 S.Ct., at 2807. Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, "precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it...