By Gregory M. Lipper In her latest column, Linda Greenhouse predicts that the Supreme Court’s order in Zubik v. Burwell will not produce the desired happy compromise between the government and the religious organizations who object to the government’s arranging for their students and staff to receive contraceptive coverage from third parties. Towards the end,…
By Gregory M. Lipper In a unanimous, unsigned order hailed as “an almost hilariously brazen punt,” the Supreme Court sent Zubik v. Burwell and the other contraception cases back to the lower courts for further consideration. The order states that, in light of the supplemental briefs submitted at the Court’s request, the parties should have…
By Gregory M. Lipper The first set of supplemental briefs in Zubik v. Burwell is in. The government seems willing to accept a modified version of the Court’s proposed compromise—if it means that the Court will halt the neverending legal challenges to the contraceptive-coverage regulations. The religious objectors, however, merely purport to accept the Court’s…
By Gregory M. Lipper This afternoon the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing in Zubik v. Burwell and the other challenges to the contraceptive-coverage accommodation, as follows: “The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs that address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way…
By Gregory M. Lipper The Economist is not buying the challengers’ claim that the provision of contraceptive coverage—by third parties—is an act of “hijacking”: When the government arranges for contraceptive coverage with the insurance company used by the religious charity, it is not commandeering anybody’s property. Nor is it taking metaphorical control of the group’s…
By Gregory M. Lipper Over at Rewire, I’ve analyzed yesterday’s oral argument in Zubik v. Burwell. Among other things, I address the recurring claim that the government was “hijacking” religious objectors’ health plans by arranging for third party insurers and plan administrators to provide contraceptive coverage to affected women: The fear of hijacking might have made…
By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 of this series) The plaintiffs in Zubik v. Burwell and its siblings seek to block their students and employees from receiving contraceptive coverage from third-party insurance companies and plan administrators. Even though the plaintiffs need neither provide nor pay…
By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 6 of this series) Despite birth control’s considerable benefits, the challengers in Zubik v. Burwell argue that the government lacks a compelling interest in applying the contraceptive accommodation to religious objectors. No matter how important it is to ensure that women have access…
By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series.) If the Supreme Court were to conclude that the plantiffs in Zubik v. Burwell plaintiffs have established a substantial burden on religious exercise, the case is not over. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government may enforce…
By Gregory M. Lipper (Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6 of this series) Pay attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming contraceptive-coverage cases and you’ll hear horror stories from religious-right groups about an “abortion-pill mandate” (here’s ADF and ACLJ). These groups know that contraception is popular and that, to most people, campaigns to block…
