Term: 2019
Docket: 19-431
Little Sisters Of The Poor Saints Peter And Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
- Pro
19-431 LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR V. PENNSYLVANIA DECISION BELOW: 930 F.3d 543 QUESTION PRESENTED: Since 2011, federal courts have repeatedly considered whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Over and over again, this Court has reviewed these cases on an emergency basis or on the merits. Yet it has never definitively resolved the RFRA dispute. In 2016, an eight-Justice Court in Zubik v. Burwell did not reach the RFRA question and instead remanded for the parties to try to reach a resolution, on the evident assumption that the executive branch possessed the power to provide broader accommodations and/or exemptions. After months of negotiations (and an intervening election), the agencies finally agreed to promulgate new rules providing a broader exemption, seemingly bringing an end to this long-running dispute. Those new rules were challenged, however, by several states, resulting in a nationwide injunction on the theory that RFRA and the Affordable Care Act not only do not require, but do not even allow, the religious exemption rules. That nationwide injunction has stagnated other cases, and it conflicts with the judgments of many courts that have issued final orders affirmatively requiring comparable exemptions under RFRA. The rights of religious objectors- including the Little Sisters' right to defend an exemption-remain very much at issue. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court? 2. Whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-3752, 18-1253, 19-1129, 19-1189 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-454 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 3, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH GUIDANCE IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE COURT WILL POSTPONE THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE APRIL SESSION. PRESS RELEASE OF APRIL 13, 2020 RESCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE. THE JUSTICES AND COUNSEL WILL ALL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2020
The U.S. Supreme Court case Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2019) revolved around a dispute over religious freedom and contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order that runs nursing homes, objected to providing contraception as part of their employees' health insurance plans due to religious beliefs. They argued that this requirement violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In response, Pennsylvania sued on behalf of its citizens who would lose access to free contraceptives if employers could opt out based on religious or moral objections. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Little Sisters, stating that it was within Trump administration's authority to provide exemptions from ACA's contraceptive mandate for employers with religious or conscientious objections.
In the dissenting opinion for Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that the majority's decision to uphold broad religious and moral exemptions from contraceptive coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a departure from previous court rulings. The dissenters believed this ruling could deny hundreds of thousands of women access to affordable contraception. They contended that while religious objections should be accommodated where possible, they should not completely override other significant interests such as public health and women’s well-being. Furthermore, they pointed out that Congress had intended for cost-free access to contraceptives when it passed ACA in order to promote public health and gender equality. In their view, granting such sweeping exemptions undermined these goals.
