Zubik v. Burwell
| Zubik v. Burwell | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 23, 2016 Decided May 16, 2016 |
|
| Full case name | David A. Zubik et al. v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam. | |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Affordable Care Act, Religious Freedom Restoration Act | |
Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy "neutral laws of general applicability" even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
In 1993, the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's exercise of religion". The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to redefine exercise of religion as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita in 2006.
...
Wikipedia