Wheaton College v. Sylvia Burwell
134 S. Ct. 2806
SCOTUS2014Background
- Wheaton College, a religious nonprofit, sued to avoid completing the HHS self‑certification (EBSA Form 700) that triggers the contraceptive‑coverage accommodation under the ACA; it sought an emergency injunction enjoining enforcement of the regulations pending appeal.
- The regulations exempt churches and provide an accommodation for religious nonprofits: a simple self‑certification to the insurer or third‑party administrator (TPA) that shifts the obligation to provide contraceptive coverage to the insurer/TPA without cost to the employer.
- Wheaton contends signing the form makes it complicit in contraception (including contraceptives it views as abortifacients) and thus substantially burdens its religious exercise under RFRA.
- The District Court and Seventh Circuit denied injunctive relief; two other circuits granted similar emergency injunctions, creating a circuit split on the procedural requirement to use EBSA Form 700.
- The Supreme Court (per an order) granted a stay/injunction pending appellate review that relieves Wheaton of using the government form or notifying insurers/TPAs; Justice Sotomayor dissented (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan), arguing the injunction was unwarranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether completing the self‑certification substantially burdens Wheaton's exercise of religion under RFRA | Wheaton: signing/filing the form makes it complicit in providing contraceptives and thus substantially burdens its beliefs | Government: any obligation to provide contraceptive coverage flows from federal law, not Wheaton's filing; the accommodation avoids burden and no substantial burden exists | Supreme Court granted temporary injunction pending appeal (majority order); Sotomayor dissent: no indisputably clear right and injunction inappropriate |
| Whether the accommodation is the least restrictive means to further compelling governmental interests | Wheaton: the accommodation still implicates complicity and is not least restrictive | Government: accommodation preserves access to contraceptives and is least restrictive to protect public health and women's well‑being | Sotomayor dissent: accommodation is least restrictive; Hobby Lobby treated accommodation as adequate; therefore injunctive relief not justified |
| Whether the Court may issue an All Writs Act interlocutory injunction before lower courts resolve the merits | Wheaton: emergency relief necessary to avoid irreparable religious harm pending appeal | Government: extraordinary All Writs relief requires that rights be "indisputably clear"; circuit disagreement counsels against emergency relief | Sotomayor dissent: All Writs injunction is improper here because the legal right is not indisputably clear and lower courts have not been afforded full review |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301 (in chambers) (All Writs Act injunction appropriate only when legal rights are indisputably clear)
- Lux v. Rodrigues, 561 U.S. 1306 (in chambers) (circuit disagreement indicates rights are not indisputably clear for All Writs relief)
- Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. v. NRC, 479 U.S. 1312 (in chambers) (All Writs Act is a narrow, sparing equitable power)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA analysis and discussion of accommodation as an alternative respecting religious liberty)
- Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (circuit decision rejecting a similar challenge to the accommodation)