Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Affordable Care Act Violation – Contraceptive Mandate

By: Derek Hawkins//September 2, 2020//

Affordable Care Act Violation – Contraceptive Mandate

By: Derek Hawkins//September 2, 2020//

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court

Case Name: Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, et al.,

Case No.: 19-431; 19-454

Focus: Affordable Care Act Violation – Contraceptive Mandate

In these consolidated cases, we decide whether the Government created lawful exemptions from a regulatory requirement implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), 124 Stat. 119. The requirement at issue obligates certain employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees through their group health plans. Though contraceptive coverage is not required by (or even mentioned in) the ACA provision at issue, the Government mandated such coverage by promulgating interim final rules (IFRs) shortly after the ACA’s passage. This requirement is known as the contraceptive mandate.

After six years of protracted litigation, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (Departments)—which jointly administer the relevant ACA provision—exempted certain employers who have religious and conscientious objections from this agency-created mandate. The Third Circuit concluded that the Departments lacked statutory authority to promulgate these exemptions and affirmed the District Court’s nationwide preliminary injunction. This decision was erroneous. We hold that the Departments had the authority to provide exemptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements for employers with religious and conscientious objections. We accordingly reverse the Third Circuit’s judgment and remand with instructions to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction.

Reversed and remanded

Dissenting: GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.

Concurring: ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined.
Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests