Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 6 Nov 2015

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2785 (2014), this Court held that the application of federal regulations implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("ACA") to compel certain for-profit religious employers to provide health- insurance coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptives, see 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012) (the ''Mandate"), violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). The government offers nonprofit religious employers an alternative means of complying with the Mandate that involves submitting a form that includes all FDA-approved contraceptives in or under the auspices of employers' healthcare plans. Petitioners, four religious universities, object as a matter of conscience to facilitating contraception that may prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the womb, and brought suit seeking relief from the Mandate under RFRA. The decision below rejected their claims, ruling that RFRA's substantial burden analysis turns on courts' secular assessment of the time, cost, and energy involved in complying with the Mandate, not Petitioners’ religious view of the required action's moral significance. The question presented is: Whether the alternative means for nonprofit religious employers to comply with the ACA's contraceptive-coverage Mandate alters Hobby Lobby's substantial-burden analysis or identification of a free exercise violation under RFRA.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge by Southern Nazarene University and other religious non-profit organizations against the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which required employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement violated their religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). They contended that even filling out a form to opt-out would make them complicit in providing contraceptives, thus burdening their exercise of religion. The Supreme Court did not issue a definitive ruling on whether the accommodation process was lawful but instead remanded the cases back to lower courts after suggesting an alternative approach where employees could receive contraceptive coverage without involving or notifying employers who objected on religious grounds.