From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zubik v. Burwell

Supreme Court of the United States
Mar 29, 2016
578 U.S. 901 (2016)

Opinion

Nos. 14–1418 14–1453 14–1505 15–35 15–105 15–119 15–191.

03-29-2016

David A. ZUBIK, et al. v. Sylvia BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; East Texas Baptist University, et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, Denver, Colorado, et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Southern Nazarene University, et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.; Geneva College v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

Paul M. Pohl, John D. Goetz, Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., Ira M. Karoll, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Robert J. Muise, David Yerushalmi, American Freedom Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Noel J. Francisco, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Matthew A. Kairis, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, for petitioners. David A. Cortman, Gregory S. Baylor, Jordan W. Lorence, Kevin H. Theriot, Matthew S. Bowman, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, for petitioners in Nos. 15–119 and 15–191. Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, PA, for Geneva College. Carl C. Scherz, Laurence A. Hansen, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, Kevin C. Walsh, Richmond, VA, for petitioners in No. 15–105. Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Robert M. Bernstein, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Adéle Auxier Keim, Daniel H. Blomberg, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, and petitioners in No. 15–105. Kenneth R. Wynne, Wynne & Wynne LLP, Houston, TX, for Westminster Theological Seminary. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Adam C. Jed, Patrick G. Nemeroff, Megan Barbero, Joshua Salzman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents. Robert J. Muise, Esq., David Yerushalmi, Esq., American Freedom, Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Noel J. Francisco, Eric S. Dreiband, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Petitioners. Eric C. Rassbach, Luke W. Goodrich, Mark Rienzi, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Daniel H. Blomberg, Adéle Auxier Keim, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Kenneth R. Wynne, Wynne & Wynne, LLP, Houston, TX, for petitioners. Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Luke Goodrich, Hannah C. Smith, Daniel H. Blomberg, Adéle Auxier Keim, Diana M. Verm, Stephanie Barclay, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Kevin C. Walsh, Richmond, VA, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Carl C. Scherz, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, for petitioners. Jordan W. Lorence, Gregory S. Baylor, Matthew S. Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, PA, David A. Cortman, Kevin H. Theriot, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, GA, for petitioner.


Paul M. Pohl, John D. Goetz, Leon F. DeJulius, Jr., Ira M. Karoll, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Robert J. Muise, David Yerushalmi, American Freedom Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Noel J. Francisco, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Matthew A. Kairis, Jones Day, Columbus, OH, for petitioners.

David A. Cortman, Gregory S. Baylor, Jordan W. Lorence, Kevin H. Theriot, Matthew S. Bowman, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, for petitioners in Nos. 15–119 and 15–191.

Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, PA, for Geneva College.

Carl C. Scherz, Laurence A. Hansen, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, Kevin C. Walsh, Richmond, VA, for petitioners in No. 15–105.

Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Robert M. Bernstein, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Adéle Auxier Keim, Daniel H. Blomberg, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for East Texas Baptist University, Houston Baptist University, and petitioners in No. 15–105.

Kenneth R. Wynne, Wynne & Wynne LLP, Houston, TX, for Westminster Theological Seminary.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant, Attorney General, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitors General, Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Mark B. Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Adam C. Jed, Patrick G. Nemeroff, Megan Barbero, Joshua Salzman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Robert J. Muise, Esq., David Yerushalmi, Esq., American Freedom, Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, Noel J. Francisco, Eric S. Dreiband, David T. Raimer, Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.

Eric C. Rassbach, Luke W. Goodrich, Mark Rienzi, Hannah C. Smith, Diana M. Verm, Daniel H. Blomberg, Adéle Auxier Keim, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Kenneth R. Wynne, Wynne & Wynne, LLP, Houston, TX, for petitioners.

Mark Rienzi, Eric C. Rassbach, Luke Goodrich, Hannah C. Smith, Daniel H. Blomberg, Adéle Auxier Keim, Diana M. Verm, Stephanie Barclay, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, Kevin C. Walsh, Richmond, VA, Paul D. Clement, Erin E. Murphy, Bancroft PLLC, Washington, DC, Carl C. Scherz, Locke Lord LLP, Dallas, TX, for petitioners.

Jordan W. Lorence, Gregory S. Baylor, Matthew S. Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC, Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, PA, David A. Cortman, Kevin H. Theriot, Rory T. Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, GA, for petitioner.

ORDER

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 that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.

Petitioners with insured plans are currently required to submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government (naming petitioners' insurance company), stating that petitioners object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners' employees, through petitioners' insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.

For example, the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners' insurance company—aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners' health plan.

The parties may address other proposals along similar lines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.

The briefs, limited to a single brief 25 pages in length for petitioners, and a single brief 20 pages in length for respondents, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon counsel for the other parties on or before April 12, 2016. Reply briefs, limited to a single brief 10 pages in length for petitioners and for respondents, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel for the other parties on or before April 20, 2016.


Summaries of

Zubik v. Burwell

Supreme Court of the United States
Mar 29, 2016
578 U.S. 901 (2016)
Case details for

Zubik v. Burwell

Case Details

Full title:David A. ZUBIK, et al. v. Sylvia BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human…

Court:Supreme Court of the United States

Date published: Mar 29, 2016

Citations

578 U.S. 901 (2016)
194 L. Ed. 2d 599

Citing Cases

Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings

Here, the nursing homes "would at best be entitled to a preemption defense" under the PREP Act. Manning v.…

Intermec IP Corp. v. Transcore, LP

. . .").Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Intel Corp., 2019 WL 1650067, at *4 (D. Del. Apr. 17, 2019) (citing Manning…