Supreme Court remands university’s case against HHS Department’s contraceptive mandate

 

The Supreme Court remanded the University of Notre Dame’s case against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the lower court on March 8.  The high court ordered the federal appeals court to reconsider its previous decision, which forced the university to comply with the contraception mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act.

In its lawsuit against the HHS mandate, Notre Dame argued that complying would violate the university’s Catholic beliefs.

Paul Browne, Vice President of Public Affairs, remarked to the Rover about the Supreme Court’s action,  “We’re gratified that it has vacated the opinion of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and remanded our case for consideration.”

Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law, explained the significance of this decision.  “It means literally that the Circuit Court—which had earlier affirmed the trial court’s denial of Notre Dame’s request for an injunction (so that Notre Dame would NOT have to comply with the HHS mandate)—is being told to reconsider that decision, in light of what the Supreme Court said about the HHS mandate in the Hobby Lobby decision,” he told the Rover.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Court ruled last summer that owners of for-profit corporations could decline to provide contraception coverage in their employee insurance plan if providing contraception violated the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs.  In light of this decision, the Court concluded that Notre Dame’s case deserved further review.

“In light of the high court’s decision in Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the University had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari for the remand of the case,” Browne explained.

Richard Garnett, Professor of Law, told the Rover,The Supreme Court’s decision, in effect, tells the Court of Appeals to take another look at Notre Dame’s challenge, in a way that is consistent with the Court’s own Hobby Lobby decision.

“The justices sometimes do this, and give the lower court a ‘first crack’ at applying a new Court decision, when a lower court’s decision seems inconsistent with what the Court has said is the correct understanding of the law,” Garnett continued.

Even though the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court, the Court of Appeals does not necessarily need to reverse its previous decision.

“Of course, the Court of Appeals might decide that, even taking into consideration the Hobby Lobby ruling, the University’s challenge still fails,” Garnett stated.

Still, the fact that the Supreme Court believes that Notre Dame’s case deserves another evaluation could mean relief for the university.

“But, certainly, the Court’s decision to scrap the lower court’s first effort—and, in particular, to vacate a judicial opinion that was very disappointing in some of its rhetoric—is a good sign for Notre Dame’s religious-freedom case,” Garnett continued.  “Clearly, a majority of the justices think the Court of Appeals needs to take another look, and another approach.”

Though Notre Dame was granted an accommodation that required a third party insurance provider—not the university directly—to provide contraceptives to employees, the university still maintained that compliance violated its Catholic beliefs.

“The circuit court had earlier denied Notre Dame’s request for a temporary restraining order regarding an HHS mandate which violated our religious beliefs by requiring Notre Dame’s participation in a regulatory scheme to provide abortion-inducing products, contraceptives, and sterilization,” Browne added.  “Notre Dame continues to challenge the Federal mandate as an infringement on our fundamental right to the free exercise of our Catholic faith.”

With this new development, Notre Dame will either continue to comply with the HHS mandate or, if the circuit court reverses its earlier decision, Notre Dame may be granted an exemption from the mandate.

“Nothing can go worse for Notre Dame, so that this is good news: either nothing will change from the way it is now, or things will get a lot better (if it turns out that the Circuit Court changes its mind),” Bradley continued.

“It is impossible to say with utter confidence what the Circuit Court will do,” he added.  “But I think it very likely that nothing will change, and so Notre Dame will go on complying with the contraception/abortifacient mandate.”

Hailey Vrdolyak is a junior political science and theology major.  Contact her at hvrydolya@nd.edu.