SCOTUS Opinion: Zubik v. Burwell
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
Zubik v. Burwell: By a vote of 8-0, judgments of the Courts of Appeals are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Court also issued separate orders in each case (list here).
Per curiam: "In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D. C. Circuits. Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” Id., at 1. We anticipate that the Courts of Appeals will allow the parties sufficient time to resolve any outstanding issues between them. The Court finds the foregoing approach more suitable than addressing the significantly clarified views of the parties in the first instance. Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court’s involvement at this point to resolve them.... The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest. Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans 'obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.' Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 1). Through this litigation, petitioners have made the Government aware of their view that they meet 'the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds.' Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2). Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, 'precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage' going forward. Ibid. Because the Government may rely on this notice, the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure to provide the relevant notice.
Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg.
Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown Law
After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1971, Professor Seidman served as a law clerk for J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He then was a staff attorney with the D.C. Public Defender Service until joining the Law Center faculty in 1976. He teaches a variety of courses in the fields of constitutional and criminal law. He is co-author of a constitutional law casebook and the author of many articles concerning criminal justice and constitutional law. His most recent books are Silence and Freedom (Stanford 2007), Our Unsettled Constitution: A New Defense of Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Yale 2001) and Equal Protection of the Laws (Foundation 2002).
Director, Faculty Programs & Division Administrator, The Federalist Society
Anthony Deardurff serves as Director of Faculty Programs & Division Administrator. He previously practiced complex commercial and appellate litigation in the Washington, D.C. office of WilmerHale, LLP, and clerked on both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Mr. Deardurff earned his J.D. cum laude from Notre Dame Law School and his B.A. summa cum laude from the University of Dallas, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He holds a license to practice in both Illinois and the District of Columbia.