Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Cases Challenging the ACA's Contraceptives Mandate
Practical Law Legal Update 1-550-0247 (Approx. 3 pages)
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Cases Challenging the ACA's Contraceptives Mandate
by Practical Law Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation
| Published on 26 Nov 2013 • USA (National/Federal) |
The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, in which for-profit, secular corporations and their owners brought religious challenges against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers generally must provide first-dollar coverage of contraceptives for women.
On November 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, in which for-profit, secular corporations and their owners brought religious challenges against the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans and insurers generally must provide first-dollar coverage of contraceptives for women (see Practice Note, Coverage of Preventive Health Services under the ACA: Contraceptive Coverage).
The cases, which will be heard by the Court in consolidated form, reached opposing results regarding the contraceptives mandate under the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Specifically:
- In Hobby Lobby, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that for-profit corporations are persons under the RFRA and that compliance with the mandate would substantially burden the religious exercise of the plaintiff corporations, which are owned by a family that runs the company according to a set of Christian principles (see Legal Update, Tenth Circuit Permits Injunction in Contraceptives Coverage Challenge).
- In Conestoga, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a corporation and its owners could not challenge the mandate under the Free Exercise Clause and the RFRA because for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise (Legal Update, Third Circuit Turns Back For-profit Corporation's Religious Challenge to Contraceptives Mandate).
The Supreme Court's decision to hear these cases addresses a split among the circuit courts on the legality of the contraceptives mandate as applied to for-profit, secular corporations and their owners.
Previously, the federal government has exempted group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers from the mandate, and offered a temporary enforcement safe harbor to certain nonprofit entities (see Practice Note, Coverage of Preventive Health Services under the ACA: Contraceptive Coverage). However, to date, the government has maintained that secular, for-profit employers that offer health coverage must comply with the mandate.