User login
U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.
Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.
“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”
The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.
The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.
During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.
Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.
“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”
U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.
Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.
“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”
The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.
The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.
During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.
Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.
“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”
U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
During oral arguments on May 6, the court expressed differing perspectives about the administration’s authority to allow for more exemptions under the health law’s birth control mandate and whether the expansions were reasonable. Justices heard the consolidated cases – Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania – by teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They are expected to make a decision by the summer.
Associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in the telephone conference call from a hospital where she was recovering from a gallbladder condition, said the exemptions ignored the intent of Congress to provide women with comprehensive coverage through the ACA.
“The glaring feature of what the government has done in expanding this exemption is to toss to the winds entirely Congress’s instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage,” she said during oral arguments. “This leaves the women to hunt for other government programs that might cover them, and for those who are not covered by Medicaid or one of the other government programs, they can get contraceptive coverage only from paying out of their own pocket, which is exactly what Congress didn’t want to happen.”
Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., meanwhile, indicated that a lower court opinion that had blocked the exemptions from going forward conflicts with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a related case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
“Explain to me why the Third Circuit’s analysis of the question of substantial burden is not squarely inconsistent with our reasoning in Hobby Lobby,” Associate Justice Alito said during oral arguments. “Hobby Lobby held that, if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, a federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That’s precisely the situation here. Reading the Third Circuit’s discussion of the substantial burden question, I wondered whether they had read that part of the Hobby Lobby decision.”
The dispute surrounding the ACA’s birth control mandate and the extent of exemptions afforded has gone on for a decade and has led to numerous legal challenges. The ACA initially required all employers to cover birth control for employees with no copayments, but exempted group health plans of religious employers. Those religious employers were primarily churches and other houses of worship. After a number of complaints and lawsuits, the Obama administration created a workaround for nonprofit religious employers not included in that exemption to opt out of the mandate. However, critics argued the process itself was a violation of their religious freedom.
The issue led to the case of Zubik v. Burwell, a legal challenge over the mandate exemption that went before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016. The issue was never resolved however, and in May 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court rulings related to Zubik v. Burwell and remanded the case back to the four appeals courts that had originally ruled on the issue.
In 2018, the Trump administration announced new rules aimed at broadening exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate to entities that object to services covered by the mandate on the basis of “sincerely held religious beliefs.” A second rule allowed nonprofit organizations and small businesses that had nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate to opt out.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia then sued the Trump administration over the rules, as well as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a separate case. Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious nonprofit operating a home in Pittsburgh, intervened in the case as an aggrieved party. An appeal court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward.
During oral arguments, Solicitor General for the Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco said the exemptions are lawful because they are authorized under a provision of the ACA as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
“RFRA at the very least authorizes the religious exemption,” Mr. Francisco said during oral arguments.
Chief Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania Michael J. Fischer argued that the Trump administration’s moral and religious exemption rules rest on overly broad assertions of agency authority.
“First, the agencies twist a narrow delegation that allows the Health Resources and Services Administration to decide which preventive services insurers must cover under the Women’s Health Amendment into a grant of authority so broad it allows them to permit virtually any employer or college to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage entirely, including for reasons as amorphous as vaguely defined moral beliefs,” he said during oral arguments. “Second, the agencies claim that RFRA, a statute that limits government action, affirmatively authorizes them to permit employers to deny women their rights to contraceptive coverage even in the absence of a RFRA violation in the first place.”
