Supreme Court issues 'unusually extensive' order for more briefing in contraceptive-coverage case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered parties to submit additional briefs in a case challenging the procedure to opt out of required contraceptive coverage for employees.
The order seeks briefing on whether and how contraceptive coverage can be obtained by employees in a way that doesn’t involve the religiously affiliated organizations that filed the challenge, report the National Law Journal (sub. req.), the New York Times, SCOTUSblog and ThinkProgress.
The order in Zubik v. Burwell is 354 words long and “unusually extensive,” according to the National Law Journal. According to SCOTUSblog, the order is “a significant break from the court’s customary approach of taking a controversy as it finds it, and deciding its legality based only on those terms.”
In oral arguments last week, justices appeared split on whether the opt-out process violates the Religious Freedom Act. Religious groups allege a violation because opting out of coverage by filing a form leads to contraceptive coverage for their employees, making them complicit in sin. The coverage is required by the Affordable Care Act.
According to the order: “The parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the federal government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.”
The parties may also address other proposals, the order says.
