Trump v. Pennsylvania

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 17 Jan 2020

1. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 18001 et seq., requires many group health plans and health-insurance issuers that offer group or individual health coverage to provide coverage for preventive services, including women's preventive care, without cost-sharing. See 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a). Guidelines and regulations implementing that requirement promulgated in 2011 by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury mandated that such entities cover contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The mandate exempted churches, and subsequent rulemaking established an accommodation for certain other entities with religious objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In October 2017, the agencies promulgated interim final rules expanding the exemption to a broad range of entities with sincere religious or moral objections to providing contraceptive coverage. In November 2018, after considering comments solicited on the interim rules, the agencies promulgated final rules expanding the exemption. The questions presented are as follows:
2. Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.
3. Whether the agencies' decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules-which were issued after notice and comment-invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 701 et seq.
4. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge to the Trump administration's rules expanding exemptions for employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA originally required that employer-provided health insurance plans cover preventive services, including contraception. However, these new rules allowed more employers to opt out of this requirement by claiming religious or moral objections. Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued, arguing that these exemptions were unlawful and would result in women losing access to free contraceptive care. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, holding that it had the authority under federal law to issue such regulations and did so properly.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. They argued that the majority’s decision undermined women's rights guaranteed by Congress through the ACA's mandate on preventive care coverage without cost-sharing requirements. Ginsburg contended that allowing broad exceptions based on religious or moral grounds effectively denied many women access to essential healthcare services they are entitled to receive under federal law. She emphasized how this ruling could lead millions of women who rely on their employer’s health plan for comprehensive medical needs vulnerable due solely because their bosses have personal beliefs against certain types of birth control.