Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
 | |
| Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania | |
| Term: 2019 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argument: May 6, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020 | |
| Outcome | |
| reversed and remanded | |
| Vote | |
| 7-2 | |
| Majority | |
| Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Concurring | |
| Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Elena Kagan • Stephen Breyer | |
| Dissenting | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor | |
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania is a 2020 United States Supreme Court case following a series of cases about the legality of agency rules providing religious and moral exemptions to the contraception mandate created under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled 7-2 that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had the legal authority to create the exemptions and that they followed proper procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The majority addressed the other issue in the case, whether the Little Sisters of the Poor had standing to defend the exemptions, in a footnote saying that they did. The Little Sisters are a group of international Catholic women who aim to help elderly poor people.[1] They are one of several Catholic organizations that had opposed the contraception mandate for years.[2]
The court sent the case back to the Third Circuit to reconsider its decision to rule against the Little Sisters of the Poor.[3]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the court should have also ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) required the agencies to create the religious exemption to the contraception mandate.[3] The U.S. Supreme Court had already decided not to answer how RFRA applied to the contraception mandate in Zubik v. Burwell (2016). Under RFRA, administrative agencies may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless there is "a compelling government interest" and the burden "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."[4]
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion agreeing with the majority that the departments had the authority to create the exemptions to the contraception mandate, but for a different reason than the majority gave. Kagan argued that Obamacare was ambiguous with respect to the departments' authority to exempt employers from the contraception mandate, so the court should have deferred to the departments' interpretation of the law under the Chevron doctrine.[3] Chevron says that courts must uphold reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws offered by agencies empowered to administer those laws.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require the court to rule in favor of the exemptions to the contraception mandate.[3]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the case with Trump v. Pennsylvania.[5][6]
Review the lower court's opinion here.
Why it matters: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision allowed agencies to exempt certain employers from the contraception mandate found in the Affordable Care Act.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- July 8, 2020: The U.S. Supreme court overturned the decision of the Third Circuit and sent the case back to that court so it could reconsider its decision.
- May 6, 2020: Oral argument
- April 3, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its April sitting. Oral arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania were initially scheduled for April 29, 2020.
- January 17, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 1, 2019: The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
- July 12, 2019: The Third Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction against the regulations in question.
Background
| Administrative State |
|---|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| •Agency control • Executive control • Judicial control •Legislative control • Public Control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
On January 17, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania as consolidated cases.[5]
U.S. Supreme Court considers challenges to Obamacare contraceptive mandate
- See also: Obamacare lawsuits
Obamacare requires some employers who provide health insurance to their employees to offer insurance plans that cover contraceptives. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. that closely-held companies could opt out of the Obamacare contraceptive mandate based on religious beliefs.[8] Then, in 2016, the court delivered an 8-8 per curiam opinion in Zubik v. Burwell that instructed lower courts to further consider whether the regulatory process available for those who wanted to claim exemption from the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).[9]
States challenge new Trump administration contraceptive mandate exemption rules
The Trump administration issued two final rules in November 2018 that aimed to "provide conscience protections to Americans who have a religious or moral objection to health insurance that covers contraceptive methods, including certain contraceptives that many view as abortifacients, and/or sterilization procedures," according to an administration press release.[10] Several states filed lawsuits against the Trump administration and lower courts blocked the rules from going into effect.[11]
Third Circuit Court upholds nationwide injunction against contraceptive mandate exemption rules
A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a preliminary nationwide injunction that kept the Trump administration rules governing exemptions to the contraceptive mandate from going into effect. The panel held that the agencies did not have the power to allow religious exemptions to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate. The panel also held that the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when they issued the final rules.[9]
Little Sisters of the Poor appeal Third Circuit decision to U.S. Supreme Court
The Little Sisters of the Poor appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Third Circuit was wrong to deny the organization standing to appeal its decision against the contraceptive mandate exemption rules. The Little Sisters of the Poor also argued that the Third Circuit's decision creates a regulatory environment that violates RFRA and that the agencies did not violate the APA when they crafted exemptions to Obamacare's contraception mandate.[9]
Oral argument delayed by COVID-19
The case was expected to be argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on April 3 that it was postponing the eight oral arguments originally scheduled during its April sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19."[12] COVID-19 is the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2. Oral argument took place on May 6, 2020.
Questions presented
The Little Sisters of the Poor, the petitioner, presented the following questions to the court:[9]
Questions presented:
|
Outcome
The U.S. Supreme Court nullified the Third Circuit's ruling with a 7-2 vote against Pennsylvania and sent the case back to the Third Circuit to dissolve a nationwide injunction that had been blocking the rules at issue in the case.[3]
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Opinions
Opinion of the court
The court ruled that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (Departments) had authority under Obamacare to make rules providing for religious and moral exemptions to the requirement that certain employers provide health insurance that includes contraception. The court held that the Departments were right to consider the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when crafting the exemptions. Under RFRA, administrative agencies may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless there is "a compelling government interest" and the burden "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest."[4] Finally, the court ruled that the Departments followed proper procedures when they issued the exemption rules.[3]
In the opinion of the court, Justice Thomas wrote:[3]
| “ | After two decisions from this Court and multiple failed regulatory attempts, the Federal Government has arrived at a
solution that exempts the Little Sisters from the source of their complicity-based concerns—the administratively imposed contraceptive mandate.
We hold today that the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption. We further hold that the rules promulgating these exemptions are free from procedural defects.[13] |
” |
In a footnote, Thomas addressed the other question before the court, whether the Little Sisters had standing to defend the exemptions. He wrote that because the Little Sisters intervened in the case with the federal government, which had clear standing, "The Third Circuit accordingly erred by inquiring into the Little Sisters' independent Article III standing."[3]
Thomas also wrote that Obamacare gave the Health Resources & Services Administration within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "sweeping authority" to "craft a set of standards defining the preventive care that applicable health plans must cover." He went on to write, "No party has pressed a constitutional challenge to the breadth of the delegation involved here," and cited Gundy v. United States (2019), which addressed the scope of the nondelegation doctrine.[3]
Concurring opinions
Justice Samuel Alito joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion arguing that the court should have also ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires the challenged religious exemption to the contraception mandate. Alito argued that by not deciding whether RFRA requires the exemption, the court "will prolong the legal battle in which the Little Sisters have now been engaged for seven years—even though during all this time no employee of the Little Sisters has come forward with an objection to the Little Sisters’ conduct."[3]
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, filed a concurring opinion arguing that the ACA was ambiguous with respect to the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) authority to exempt employers from the contraception mandate, so the court should defer to the Departments' interpretation of the law under the Chevron doctrine. She argued that courts should defer to agencies under Chevron because agencies are more politically accountable and have more expertise than courts. Kagan also argued that the Departments might have still failed the arbitrary-or-capricious test under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires agencies to give reasons for their decisions.[3]
Dissenting opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion arguing that "for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree." She wrote that "this Court leaves women workers to fend for themselves, to seek contraceptive coverage from sources other than their employer’s insurer, and, absent another available source of funding, to pay for contraceptive services out of their own pockets" even though, for Ginsburg, the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not require that outcome.[3]
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[14]
Transcript
Commentary about the case
Post-decision commentary
- The editorial board of The New York Times wrote that, "The court has upheld the Trump administration’s expanded exemptions to the mandate, on administrative grounds, making it harder for many thousands of American women to get birth control. ... It’s hard to imagine the conservative justices of this court, especially, allowing employers to claim a moral exemption and require their employees to pay out of pocket for, say, a treatment for Covid-19."[15]
- Writing for SCOTUSblog, reporter Amy Howe argued the following: "As both Alito’s and Kagan’s opinions suggest, the battle over the exemptions from the birth-control mandate may not be over yet. Instead, the dispute will go back to the lower courts for them to weigh in on whether the expansion of the exemptions was the product of reasoned decision-making, virtually guaranteeing that the litigation surrounding the exemptions will continue until well after the 2020 election."[16]
- Richard Samp, senior litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), argued in a press release following the court's decision, "The Court is clearly aware of the extremely broad delegation issues ACA presents, and also alive to the need to accommodate religious liberty."[17] Samp continued: "Much of NCLA’s amicus brief focused on the problem created by the ACA’s extremely broad delegation of legislative power. ... Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion for the Court explained that '[n]o party has pressed a constitutional challenge to the breadth of the delegation involved here.' But he noted the 'extraordinarily "broad general directiv[e]"' Congress granted to HHS by the ACA, and he cited to Gundy, the Court’s recent (but ultimately inconclusive) consideration of the nondelegation doctrine."[17]
- Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent for Vox, wrote that "Thomas’s opinion does not simply allow the Trump administration to limit many individuals’ access to birth control, it could also allow courts to dismantle a key provision of Obamacare that ensures patients receive preventive care without having to pay out-of-pocket costs."[18] He suggested that Thomas "is inviting future litigants to argue that the birth control mandate itself is unconstitutional. And he does so in an opinion joined by all five justices who have previously spoken favorably towards Gorsuch’s Gundy opinion. If you are a lawyer who hates Obamacare, it’s not hard to guess what you’re supposed to do next."[18]
- See also: Nondelegation doctrine
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, et al. (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, et al.
Footnotes
- ↑ Little Sisters of the Poor, "Home," accessed July 24, 2020
- ↑ Catholic Herald, "List of 43 Plaintiffs in 12 Lawsuits Against HHS Mandate," May 24, 2012
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 U.S. Supreme Court, "Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania Opinion," July 8, 2020
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Congress.gov, "H.R.1308 - Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993," accessed July 24, 2020
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania, et al. Docket," January 20, 2020
- ↑ Trump v. Pennsylvania also came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The original docket number for that case is 19-454.
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "Pennsylvania v. President U.S.," July 12, 2019
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Symposium: Why is RFRA still valid against the federal government?" February 20, 2014
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Supreme Court of the United States "The Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," accessed January 20, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Fact Sheet: Final Rules on Religious and Moral Exemptions and Accommodation for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act," November 7, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Fact Sheet: Final Rules on Religious and Moral Exemptions and Accommodation for Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, General Notice," accessed January 20, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Press release from April 3, 2020," accessed April 3, 2020
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed May 11, 2020
- ↑ The New York Times, "The Roberts Court Curtails Birth Control Access. Again.," July 8, 2020
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Court rejects challenge to exemptions from birth-control mandate," July 8, 2020
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "Little Sisters Supreme Court Decision Preserves Religious Liberty but Does Not Reach Delegation Issue," July 8, 2020
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Vox, "The Supreme Court just gave Republicans a powerful new weapon against Obamacare, " July 8, 2020
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||