Birth control coverage exemptions
Zubik v. Burwell
In brief
The Supreme Court sent the cases back without deciding whether the religious groups’ objections are protected under federal law.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 16, 2016 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- Religious organizations challenged federal rules for the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive-coverage requirement, arguing that the objection process burdened their religious exercise.
- Who it affects
- The organizations’ challenges return to lower courts, while the Supreme Court left open whether the objection process violates federal religious-freedom law.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the appeals-court rulings (vacated them) and sent the cases back to the lower courts (remanded them), without deciding whether the rules violated federal religious-freedom law.
The Affordable Care Act’s rules required contraceptive coverage, and religious organizations disputed how they could object to that requirement.
Question presented
1. Does the availability of a regulatory exemption for religious employers regarding the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on those organizations’ exercise of their religious freedom? 2. Do the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidelines satisfy the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s demanding test for overriding religious objections? 3. Do the Department of Health and Human Services’ guidelines violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when the government has not proven that the guidelines are the least restrictive means of advancing the compelling government interest?
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgments of the Courts of Appeals are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Majority author
- Per Curiam
- Majority
- Anthony M. Kennedy
What's next
The lower courts are to continue the cases under the Supreme Court’s instructions; the Court did not rule on whether the objection process violated federal religious-freedom law.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: Zubik
More questions
- What did Justice Sotomayor tell lower courts?
- She said lower courts should not read the Court’s opinion or its March 29 order as a signal of how the Supreme Court views the unresolved issues.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.