Supreme Court Sends Contraception Case Back To Lower Courts, Demands Compromise

Kaiser Health News: Supreme Court Sends Health Law Birth Control Case Back To Lower Courts
When it comes to the issue of religious rights versus no-cost contraception, the only thing the Supreme Court could agree on was not to decide the case. In an unsigned opinion issued Monday, the court sent a series of cases back to a raft of federal appeals courts, with instructions for those courts and the parties in the lawsuits to try harder to work things out. “The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases,” the opinion said. (Rovner, 5/16)

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Ruling Should Clear The Way To Free Birth Control For Women With Religious Employers
Based on that understanding, the justices said they saw no need to rule now on the major legal questions raised by this dispute. The outcome appears to resolve a long-running clash between the Catholic Church hierarchy and Obama’s attorneys that had played out in courts across the nation. (Savage, 5/16)

The Associated Press: Supreme Court Avoids Major Ruling In Birth Control Dispute
The Supreme Court is ridding itself of a knotty dispute between faith-based groups and the Obama administration over birth control. The court is asking lower courts to take another look at the issue in a search for a compromise. The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion in a case over the arrangement devised by the administration to spare faith-based groups from having to pay for birth control for women covered under their health plans. The major confrontation over an element of President Barack Obama's health care law is ending with a whimper and with no resolution of the issue the court undertook to decide. The case almost certainly would not return to the Supreme Court until after the 2016 presidential election. (5/16)

USA Today: Supreme Court Sends 'Contraceptive Mandate' Cases Back To Lower Courts
The Supreme Court sought a compromise Monday on challenges by non-profit religious groups to the federal requirement that they play a minor role in offering free coverage of contraceptives to their female employees. The justices unanimously sent the cases back to federal appeals courts in hopes that they can emerge with a way to honor the objections of religious non-profit groups such as charities and hospitals while still guaranteeing free birth control to their employees. (Wolf, 5/16)

Politico: Supreme Court Demands Compromise On Obamacare Contraception Rule
The Supreme Court Monday told the Obama administration and the challengers in the Zubik v. Burwell lawsuit over Obamacare’s birth control coverage requirement to go back to the lower courts and try to find a solution that satisfies both parties. The justices did not rule on the merits of the challenge. (5/16)

Vox: Supreme Court Punts On The Latest Obamacare Birth Control Challenge
After oral arguments, the Court asked both the religious non-profit petitioners and the federal government to address "whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners." In other words, can women employed by religious non-profits still get seamless contraception coverage, even if their bosses don't want to take any steps to notify the government that extra coverage is needed? According to the unanimous ruling, both the government and the petitioners confirmed in supplemental briefings that this is "feasible." So now they get to work out the details of this new arrangement, whatever it is. (Crockett, 5/16)

The New York Times: Justices, Seeking Compromise, Return Contraception Case to Lower Courts
The eight-member Supreme Court appears to be exploring every avenue to avoid 4-to-4 deadlocks, even if the resulting action does not decide the question the justices agreed to address. (Liptak, 5/16)

The Washington Post: Justices Send Obamacare Contraception Case Back To Lower Courts
The court punted the issue back to lower courts, and said its unanimous ruling “expresses no view on the merits of the cases.” In the unsigned opinion, the court emphasized: “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.” (Barnes, 5/16)