Zubik v. Burwell
136 S. Ct. 1557
| SCOTUS | 2016Background
- Multiple nonprofit employers (petitioners) objected on religious grounds to a federal rule requiring contraceptive coverage in employer-sponsored health plans unless employers submit a form opting out.
- Petitioners argued that submitting the opt-out notice substantially burdens their religious exercise under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act).
- After oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing on whether insurers could provide seamless contraceptive coverage to petitioners’ employees without any notice from petitioners.
- Both petitioners and the Government confirmed such an insurer-provided option is feasible; petitioners clarified their objection does not extend to simply contracting for a plan that omits contraception while employees still receive coverage from the insurer.
- In light of these clarified positions, the Supreme Court vacated the courts of appeals’ judgments and remanded for the courts to allow the parties time to craft an approach that accommodates religious exercise while ensuring employees receive full, cost-free contraceptive coverage.
- The Court expressly declined to decide the merits (e.g., whether petitioners’ religious exercise was substantially burdened, or whether the regulations are the least restrictive means) and preserved the Government’s ability to rely on prior notices for implementation and to avoid imposing taxes or penalties for failure to file notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring an opt-out notice substantially burdens religious exercise | Notice forces religious employers to facilitate coverage contrary to beliefs (substantial burden) | Government can administer coverage without employer notice; burden not necessarily substantial | Court did not decide merits; remanded for further proceedings allowing parties to implement insurer-provided coverage without employer notice |
| Whether insurers can provide seamless, no-cost contraceptive coverage without employer notice | Petitioners accept contracting for plans without contraception if insurer still provides coverage to employees | Gov’t confirms regulations can be modified so insurers provide coverage seamlessly without employer notice | Court found the option feasible on parties’ representations and remanded to implement/consider it |
| Whether contraceptive coverage must be provided via a separate enrollment/enrollment process | Petitioners sometimes argued separate policy/enrollment required to avoid involvement | Government argued separate contraceptive-only policies are legally and practically problematic and would disrupt seamless coverage | Court declined to endorse separate-policy requirement; noted practical problems and left implementation questions to courts of appeals |
| Whether Supreme Court resolves RFRA balancing (substantial burden, compelling interest, least restrictive means) | Petitioners sought relief under RFRA | Government defended regulation as necessary to ensure coverage | Court expressly declined to address RFRA merits and vacated judgments for remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 562 U.S. 42 (2011) (per curiam vacatur and remand to consider new developments in the first instance)
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131 (2010) (per curiam vacatur and remand to allow lower court to consider further proceedings in light of new developments)