The Catholic institute for women known as Little Sisters of the Poor has just pulled off what amounts to a legal victory over the forced coverage of contraceptives through the Obamacare or Affordable Care Act. Although the Supreme Court didn’t make any judgements on the merits of the case, the news is a two-fold win for the Little Sisters of the Poor.
In summary, Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling that decided the Sisters must provide access to contraception. That lower ruling also denied that providing contraceptives significantly conflicted with the Sisters’ religion. Therefore, the fact that this lower court ruling was vacated is good news in itself.
The second half of the good news is the fact that the Supreme Court paved a way for the conflict to be resolved by outlining an accommodation. NRO‘s David French explains:
Second, the Supreme Court provided a roadmap for an excellent resolution to the case — by outlining the accommodation it suggested, the Little Sisters endorsed, and the government reluctantly agreed to:
Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”
This accommodation is more respectful of the Sisters’ religious liberty rights than the regulations outlined in Obamacare and, according to French, the government would have “extreme difficulty” in credibly arguing that the Supreme Court’s own suggested compromise be dismissed.
Although this isn’t an outright victory, the absence of Justice Antonin Scalia would have made it difficult for the Sisters to win the case on merit. French concludes that the decision is a victory for religious victory in the medium term:
“There’s no doubt that it would have been preferable to win the case on the merits, but this is not the outcome the Obama administration hoped for, and it’s better than the 4-4 tie that most people predicted. A tie would have let stand rulings against the Little Sisters and most of the other religious organizations challenging the mandate. This outcome, by contrast, provides a judicial roadmap for a national victory for religious liberty. Congratulations to the Little Sisters, their fellow petitioners, and their capable counsel. Today is a good day for America’s first freedom.”
