Supreme Court Sends Contraception Case Back to Lower Courts

The Supreme Court decided on May 16 to defer to lower courts recent decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate.

"The court expresses no view on the merits of the cases," stated the unsigned, unanimous decision.

"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."

The much-publicized Zubik v. Burwell case pitted religious nonprofits against the federal government over a mandate to provide no-cost contraception coverage to employees. Although the law originally provided an opt-out clause, the plaintiffs, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, do not find that opt-out strong enough and argued that they are still complicit in providing contraception.

After requesting ideas for compromise in April, the shorthanded, eight-person court has now kicked that task to lower courts.

The Atlantic reports:

Many observers expected the case to be a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the swing vote. But the death of Antonin Scalia on February 13 raised the specter of a 4-4 split. An unusual order last month asking the parties for rebriefing seemed like a last-ditch attempt at avoiding deadlock.

That effort seems to have succeeded for now. In an unsigned decision, the Court remanded the cases back to the federal appellate circuits and instructed them to reconsider the positions staked out in the new briefs.

Some analysts are calling this a significant shift from 2014's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision. Legal scholar Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress writes,

"...The one thing that’s absolutely clear from the Court’s very brief, unsigned opinion in Zubik is that it will not resolve any of the nuances of how employers should exempt themselves, what should happen to women who seek birth control after an employer exempts itself, and whether self-insurance or other situations present unique problems that call for a distinct rule. The Court wants this case to go away, at least for now."

Read more at The Atlantic.