Wheaton College v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell
791 F.3d 792
7th Cir.2015Background
- Wheaton College, a nondenominational but evangelical institution, requires students and employees to sign a "Community Covenant" opposing destruction of human life "from conception to death." The College excludes emergency contraception and some IUDs from its health plans.
- Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and implementing regulations, insurers must cover FDA-approved contraceptives (including emergency contraception) for plan members; religious employers may "opt out" by notifying insurers or HHS so insurers provide coverage directly to individuals.
- Wheaton sued the federal government alleging RFRA and First Amendment violations, and claimed the ACA’s accommodation forces it to be complicit in provision of emergency contraception by ‘‘using’’ or altering its health plans; it sought a preliminary injunction and other relief.
- The Supreme Court previously held that notifying HHS suffices to trigger the accommodation; HHS then notifies insurers, who must provide coverage without cost to plan members.
- The Seventh Circuit held there is no governmental takeover or alteration of Wheaton’s health plans—the government contracts with insurers separately—and that the notification requirement does not make Wheaton complicit, nor is the identification-of-insurers requirement a substantial burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACA accommodation "uses" or alters Wheaton’s health plans making College complicit in provision of emergency contraception | Wheaton: Government "uses" its plans or inserts terms into them, making College complicit and forcing objectionable conduct | Government: Accommodation bypasses College plans; insurers (or HHS) provide separate coverage—College plans remain unchanged | Held: No; government does not use or alter College plans; new contracts with insurers are separate and College is not complicit | |
| Whether notifying HHS (and providing insurer names) substantially burdens religious exercise or compels speech | Wheaton: Notification — especially naming insurers — is a compelled act that triggers coverage and creates complicity; seeks exemption like a church | Wheaton must not identify insurers to avoid complicity | Government: Notification is minimal administrative burden required to implement accommodation; identification is necessary and not coercive | Held: No substantial burden; filing notice (including insurer ID) is a modest administrative requirement and not compelled religious speech |
| Whether ERISA/plan-administrator rules are violated when HHS designates insurers/TPAs to provide and administer contraception benefits | Wheaton: HHS designation makes insurers plan administrators in violation of ERISA or otherwise unlawful | Government: When College opts out, lawfully requires insurers to provide coverage and administer benefits; governmental direction serves as a valid plan instrument | Held: Court rejects claim as relabeling; government direction creates separate plan obligations and does not violate ERISA grounds asserted | |
| Whether Wheaton is entitled to preliminary injunction based on irreparable harm and likelihood of success | Wheaton: Irreparable religious harm and likelihood of success on merits warrant injunction | Government: Wheaton has not shown imminent harm; remedies and accommodation avoid College’s involvement; insurers are not named parties | Held: Denied — Wheaton failed to show irreparable harm or adequate match between relief sought and alleged legal wrongs |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014) (Supreme Court per curiam order describing HHS accommodation via notice to HHS)
- University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing how accommodation shifts financial and administrative responsibility to insurers/government)
- Priests for Life v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (holding accommodation/notice requirement is not unconstitutional compelled speech)