No, it would not be doing anything of the sort, because *the government has acknowledged that the administrator has no such obligation* and that *the form has no such effect as to church plans.*
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Scarberry, Mark < mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > In response to both Marci and Marty: > > > > As I said, by signing the form, the Little Sisters would be (1) notifying > the administrator that it must comply with the regs, (2) stating that the > administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR, (3) directing the > third party administrator to provide the objectionable services, and (4) > amending the plan documents to include a requirement that the third party > administrator do so. That’s the burden. > > > > Christian Bros. then can assert a right not to provide the coverage. OK; > so the services (and drugs) won’t be provided. That would not change the > fact that the Little Sisters would have directed Christian Bros. to provide > them, nor that the Little Sisters would have said (under government > compulsion) something that they don’t believe (and that, according to > Marty, simply isn’t true), namely that the administrator must comply with > the regulations. It also would not change the fact that the Little Sisters > would have amended the plan documents to include a requirement that > Christian Bros. provide the services, even though the government could not > in the end require Christian Bros. to do so. > > > > Or am I mistaken as to the contents of the regs that the Little Sisters > would be directing Christian Bros. to comply with? > > > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 3:39 PM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending Appeal > In Contraceptive Mandate Case > > > > "It seems, then, that the Court has given the Little Sisters substantial > relief by not requiring them to sign the government form." > > No it hasn't. The government concedes that it lacks the legal authority > to require the third-party administrator of a church plan -- here, > Christian Bros. Services -- to provide the coverage. So the signature has > no effect one way or the other. > > Truly, this is much ado about nothing. > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Scarberry, Mark < > mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: > > I found the form. Here is a statement that is included on the back of the > government form that the Little Sisters would have had to sign, absent the > Court’s order: > > > > The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to > the plan’s health insurance > > issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for > self-insured health plans) in order > > for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage > requirement. > > > > Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans > > > > In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a > self-insured basis, the provision of > > this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that will > process claims for > > contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 > CFR 2590.715- > > 2713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party administrator that > the eligible organization: > > > > (1) Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with > respect to claims for > > contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive > services; and > > > > (2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 > CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 > > CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A. > > > > This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that signing a form that says that the third party > administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR is the equivalent of > directing the third party administrator to comply with those regulations. > They would be notifying the administrator that it has the obligations set > out in the CFR. I suppose, in addition, that the Little Sisters dispute > whether the government can require their third party administrator to > comply with those regulations; the form would require the Little Sisters to > make a statement that they do not believe to be true. The last sentence of > the form suggests that the obligations of the plan administrator under the > CFR are included as part of the health care plan. > > > > In effect, the Little Sisters, if they signed the form, would be (1) > notifying the administrator that it must comply with the regs, (2) stating > that the administrator has the obligations set out in the CFR, (3) > directing the third party administrator to provide the objectionable > services, and (4) amending the plan documents to include a requirement that > the third party administrator do so. > > > > It seems, then, that the Court has given the Little Sisters substantial > relief by not requiring them to sign the government form. > > > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Scarberry, Mark > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 2:45 PM > > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > *Subject:* RE: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending Appeal > In Contraceptive Mandate Case > > > > Does anyone have a copy of the government-prescribed form that the Court > said the Little Sisters didn’t have to use? > > > > Mark > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Professor of Law > > Pepperdine Univ. School of Law > > > > > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] > *On Behalf Of *Marc DeGirolami > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2014 2:36 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending Appeal > In Contraceptive Mandate Case > > > > Nope. It looks like the Court told them to send the government a copy of > their complaint. > > > > *From: *Marci Hamilton <hamilto...@aol.com> > *Reply-To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Date: *Friday, January 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM > *To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Cc: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject: *Re: Supreme Court Issues Compromise Injunction Pending Appeal > In Contraceptive Mandate Case > > > > It looks like the Court told them to do what they said they didn't want to > do. > > > > Marci > > Marci A. Hamilton > > Verkuil Chair in Public Law > > Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School > > Yeshiva University > > @Marci_Hamilton > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2014, at 5:28 PM, "Friedman, Howard M." < > howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> wrote: > > The Supreme Court today extended the injunction pending appeal in Little > Sisters of the Poor case, but with unusual conditions-- see > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2014/01/supreme-court-enjoins-enforcement-of.html > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
