http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/10/supreme-court-sets-date-for.html
*Supreme Court sets date for consideration of nonprofit RFRA challenges to contraception coverage accommodation* Marty Lederman As expected, the petitioners in Nos. 15-105, *Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, *and 15-119, *Southern Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell*, filed their reply briefs earlier this week (*Little Sisters *here <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/littlesisters.certreply.pdf> ; *Southern Nazarene* *here* <http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/USSC-15-119-Reply-Brief.pdf>), and the Court has now set all seven pending petitions for consideration at its October 30 conference. That means the Court might announce as early as Monday, November 9 which, if any, of the cases it will consider. As I explained here <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html> and here <http://balkin.blogspot.com/#8432040517728691563>, I think it is likely that the Court will, at a minimum, accept the government's suggestion <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-105-15-119-LSP-SNU-v.-Burwell-2015-09-30.OSGbrief.pdf> and grant the petition in No. 14-1505 <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dcarchbishop.pet_.pdf> , *Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell*. The petitioners in *Little Sisters *argue that the Court should grant their petition, too, principally because they also raise a First Amendment question concerning the constitutionality of the lines the government has drawn between the two different accommodations it has offered to different sorts of religious organizations. The government argues at pages 21-24 of its brief <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-105-15-119-LSP-SNU-v.-Burwell-2015-09-30.OSGbrief.pdf> that the Court should not consider that constitutional question, but should instead confine its grant to the RFRA question. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/on-to-supreme-court-status-update-on.html > > *On to the Supreme Court: Status update on Roman Catholic > Archbishop, Little Sisters, and the other nonprofit contraception > accommodation cases* > > Marty Lederman > > Since I last wrote > <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html>, > about the nonprofit RFRA challenges to the government's contraceptive > coverage accommodation, a circuit split has developed, by virtue of a pair > of decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit--*Sharpe > Holdings, Inc. v. HHS > <http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/09/141507P.pdf>* and *Dordt > College v. Burwell <http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/09/142726P.pdf>*. > In each case, the court of appeals affirmed grants of preliminary > injunctions in favor of the RFRA claimants. The court found that the > plaintiffs were likely to prevail on showing that the contraception > coverage accommodation substantially burdens their religious exercise. As > for the "least restrictive means" part of the RFRA analysis, the court did > not assess the merits, but simply concluded that the government had not yet > offered evidence, at the p.i. stage, sufficient to carry its burden of > showing that denial of the requested exemptions would be the least > restrictive means of advancing what the court assumed to be a compelling > governmental interest. > > Meanwhile, over in the Supreme Court, there are seven petitions for > *certiorari*pending, from cases decided by the D.C., Third, Fifth and > Tenth Circuits. This afternoon, in its brief in opposition to > <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-105-15-119-LSP-SNU-v.-Burwell-2015-09-30.OSGbrief.pdf>*certiorari > <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/15-105-15-119-LSP-SNU-v.-Burwell-2015-09-30.OSGbrief.pdf> > *in > Nos. 15-105, *Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, *and 15-119, *Southern > Nazarene Univ. v. Burwell*, the government informed the Court that > *certiorari* in an appropriate case is now warranted in order to resolve > the split created by the recent Eighth Circuit decisions. > > As expected, the government argues that the most suitable vehicle for the > Court's review is Case No. 14-1505 > <https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dcarchbishop.pet_.pdf> > , *Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell. *As I explained > earlier > <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html>, > and as the government elaborates in its brief > <http://in%20its%20brief%20in%20opposition%20to%20certiorari%20in%20nos.%2015-105%2C%20little%20sisters%20of%20the%20poor%20v.%20burwell%2C%20and%2015-119%2C%20%20southern%20nazarene%20univ.%20v.%20burwell%2C/> > today, > the*Roman Catholic Archbishop *petition is the best candidate for *cert. > *because > of several considerations, including that: > > -- The case was decided on the merits (cross-motions for summary > judgment), not on a motion for preliminary relief. > > -- The petitioners present the full range of insurance arrangements that > have given rise to RFRA claims in the nonprofit context, including insured > plans, self-insured plans, and self-insured church plans. (As the opinions > in the recent Tenth Circuit case demonstrate, the RFRA analysis is very > different with respect to each distinct sort of plan.) This petition also > involves both employee and student plans. > > -- The petitioners object to the entire range of the 18 covered > contraception methods, not only the four at issue in *Hobby Lobby* and > other cases. > > -- Judge Pillard's two opinions in favor of the government are very > thorough (and she addressed the statutory claim, as well). The *en banc* > petition > in the case also prompted two distinct dissenting opinions, by Judges Brown > and Kavanaugh, which differ from one another in important respects. > > -- Most importantly, the D.C. court of appeals, unlike the other courts of > appeals thus far, squarely and thoroughly addressed both the > substantial-burden and so-called "strict scrutiny" components of RFRA. > > Moreover, the *Roman Catholic Archbishop* petitioners, represented by > Noel Francisco of Jones Day, have honed their arguments, especially on the > "substantial burden" question, to eliminate many that are easily countered > (including most of those I discuss here > <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/07/unpacking-forthcoming-rfra-challenges.html>) > and to emphasize those that are most likely to engage the Court. (For what > it's worth, I have offered some preliminary thoughts on those arguments in > the final sections of this post > <http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/07/update-on-contraception-coverage.html>, > beginning with the section entitled "Substantial Burdens and Complicity.") > > Some of the other petitions also have one or more of these virtues; but no > other has them all. > > The Court originally was scheduled to consider some of the > petitions--those that are fully briefed--at its "long" conference > tomorrow. Last week, however, it postponed consideration of those > petitions, presumably so that it can consider all seven of the pending > petitions at a single conference. With the government's filing today in > *Little > Sisters*, only one brief is outstanding--the petitioner's reply brief in > *Little > Sisters *itself. As soon as that brief is filed, it is likely that the > Court will set all of the petitions for consolidated consideration, perhaps > as early as at its October 30 conference. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
