Skip to main content

Breaking: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Rule Allowing Employers With Sincere Moral or Religious Objections to Deny Employees Right to Birth Control Coverage Under Affordable Care Act


Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, a 7 - 2 decision holding that a 2017 Trump administration rule that allowed private employers with sincere moral or religious objections to opt out of providing birth control to employees to be lawful.

For those needing a refresher, the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare” as many call it), instructs health plans to provide coverage for “additional preventative care and screenings” for women.  The Health Resources and Services Administration (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services) subsequently issued guidelines that required health plans to provide access to birth control at no cost to the women covered under the plans.  However, churches and other houses of worship were excluded from this requirement.  Religious nonprofits that objected to the provision were also given an opportunity to opt out.

In 2014, the Supreme Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that a corporation owned by a religious family which objected to having to provide female employees with access to contraceptives could opt out of the ACA requirement.  In 2016, the Court was confronted with whether an improper burden on the exercise of the religion of religious nonprofits arose by requiring these nonprofits to notify the Department of Health and Human Services of their objection to the ACA requirement.  However, with the Supreme Court only having eight justices at the time, the matter was not resolved and the case was remanded back to the lower courts with instructions that a compromise be found with respect to the nonprofits’ religious beliefs while still allowing the female employees to receive their full contraceptive coverage as provided by the ACA.

Fast forward to today’s ruling, in which the Court weighed in on the Trump administration’s new rules that extended the exemption from the birth control requirement to also cover private employers that had sincere moral or religious objections to providing their female employees with this coverage.  In Little Sisters of the Poor, both Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the new rules on the grounds that they violated both the ACA and federal laws that govern administrative agencies.  A lower court sided with the states and blocked enforcement of the rule.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

In the Supreme Court’s opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority and noted that a plain reading of the ACA provides that the Trump administration (or any Presidential administration, really) has “virtually unbridled discretion” to decide what counts as required coverage under the ACA and any moral or religious exemptions that may be necessary.  Justice Thomas went on to point out that “no language in the statute [ACA] itself even hints that Congress intended that contraception should or must be covered.  It was Congress, not the [Trump administration] that declined to expressly require the contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Thomas’ decision.  Justice Elena Kagan filed a concurring opinion (in which Justice Stephen Breyer joined) and recognized that while the Trump administration had the authority to grant religious exemptions to the ACA birth control requirement, the case should be sent back to the lower court for further review.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissent (joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor) arguing that the majority opinion’s decision favored religious freedom to the detriment of individual rights.

After a few unfavorable results for the Trump administration in recent weeks, this 7 - 2 decision is nothing short of a resounding victory.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more