Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Little Sisters State of Play
|
Sunday, January 05, 2014
Little Sisters State of Play
Marty Lederman The Little Sisters for the Poor filed a reply brief with Justice Sotomayor on Friday. And several other bloggers have weighed in with helpful discussions, including Kevin Walsh, Mike Dorf and Lyle Denniston. I offer a few thoughts below on some of what I understand to be Little Sisters' reply brief arguments. Before I get there, however, it's important to provide a bit of perspective: The emergency motion before Justice Sotomayor, and the Little Sisters case itself, is truly not that important--to focus upon it is to miss the forest for one very idiosyncratic and unrepresentative tree. As far as the motion for temporary injunctive relief is concerned, nothing much turns on whether it is granted or not, for in neither case will Little Sisters' employees receive the benefit of cost-free contraception coverage, and presumably neither Justice Sotomayor nor the full Court will issue any opinion in this preliminary posture that will resolve the cases that do matter--such as Hobby Lobby and Notre Dame. To be sure, if the Court denies the motion and if Little Sister then chooses not to sign the certification form, Little Sisters will (at least in theory) be subject to significant penalties. But I assume no one is eager to assess such penalties, since the government's view is that the certification is a formality in this case that will not affect the provision of contraception coverage in the slightest, at least not unless and until the government amends its regulation to eliminate the inadvertent loophole that I described at the end of this post. Little Sisters might alternatively do what Notre Dame has done--simply certify and continue to litigate the issue. For Little Sisters, unlike Notre Dame, such a certification would not result in any contraception coverage--would not result in any greater incidence of allegedly sinful conduct or any possible greater involvement of Little Sisters with the use of contraception, remote or proximate--and so it's not obvious why Little Sister would not choose that option. The important cases, by contrast, are Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood and the nonprofit cases, such as Notre Dame, in which the employer's (or university's) opt-out would require an insurance issuer (such as Aetna), or a third-party administrator of a self-insured plan, to offer contraceptive coverage. The Notre Dame case, to be argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in mid-February, might be the first occasion for an appellate court to engage fully on the merits. That--and Hobby Lobby--is where the important action is. It is likely that the Court's resolution of the Little Sisters motion will be about as important for the future resolution of those cases as was Justice Sotomayor's denial of Hobby Lobby's similar motion one year ago--that is to say, not very important at all. That said, below the fold are some very preliminary reactions to three points made in the Little Sisters reply brief: 1. Little Sisters argues that if it certifies its religious objection, the plan's third-party administrator, Christian Brothers Services, will be legally required to offer contraception coverage to Little Sisters' employees. Little Sisters further argues that the Labor Department does have the legal authority to impose such an obligation upon Christian Brothers. The government says otherwise--that it does not have such authority with respect to "church plans." I do not know enough about ERISA and church plans to have a view on the merits of this dispute--but since the government disclaims any such enforcement authority, that should be the end of the matter: no contraception coverage here is likely or foreseeable, and therefore there's no need for an injunction. 2. Little Sisters argues alternatively that even if Christian Brothers declines to offer contraceptive coverage, LS might be required to provide its certification to another third-party administrator that might not share Christian Brothers' religious objection--Express Scripts, Inc., which apparently provides some kind of pharmaceutical claim administrative services. Little Sisters suggests that perhaps Express Scripts, upon receiving the certification, would voluntarily provide coverage to LS employees, even without any legal obligation to do so. In footnote 7 of its brief, the government notes that Express Scripts was "not discussed in either the district court or court of appeals decisions. Even assuming this entity is a third-party administrator, applicants’ wholly unsupported speculation that it might rely on a self-certification as a basis for voluntarily providing contraceptive coverage to employer-applicants’ employees (absent any regulatory compulsion to do so) does not provide any basis for an injunction. Applicants bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to injunctive relief, and they have wholly failed to do so with respect to any possible coverage by Express Scripts." I have no knowledge about Express Script's role under the Little Sisters plan, about whether it would receive Little Sisters' certification, about whether it would then choose voluntarily to provide contraception coverage, nor about the state of the record on these questions. But if Little Sisters has done enough to bring the Express Scripts issue into the case, and if its certification would result in coverage offered by Express Scripts, then this case would resemble the case of Notre Dame's employee plan, except that in this case the TPA would provide the coverage voluntarily, rather than under compulsion of law. 3. Finally, Little Sisters argues that if there were a TPA willing or required to offer contraception coverage to Little Sisters employees, then Little Sisters' certification would not merely be a "notice" to the TPA that it can (or must) offer contraception coverage, but would in addition have a legally operative effect, in that it would formally "designate" the TPA as the party that is authorized to offer contraception coverage. I'm not exactly sure why this point would be so significant. As I noted in my earlier post, of course it is the case that a certification of religious objection "would have a legal effect: As with any religious accommodation of this kind, the whole point of the accommodation is that the opting out by the objector would shift the responsibility to someone else (whether a state actor or, as here, another private party) to do what the religious objector declines to do." "But if that is enough to establish a substantial burden on [the employer's] religious exercise," I wrote, "then it would effectively mean that governmental religious accommodations taking the form of 'opt outs' for dissenters would themselves often create the very conflict with religion that they are designed to alleviate--and would thus threaten to prevent the state from both accommodating religion and satisfying its state interests through an alternative means, such as the use of a non-objecting party." (I then offered analogies to phramacists who opt out of dispensing certain drugs; judges who recuse from certain cases based on religious objections; and conscientious objectors who become exempt from going to war: In each case, the religious objection triggers a legal obligation on the part of another to perform the objectionable conduct.) I believe Little Sisters adds an additional point, however, that I had not appreciated before--namely, an assertion that its certification not only triggers someone else's responsibility to do what LS objects to doing, but is also a statutorily necessary prerequisite, without which the third party administrator could not offer contraception coverage under the LS plan, either voluntarily or at the government's insistence. At least that's how I understand this sentence on page 12: "But for Applicants signing and submitting these self-certification forms, there would be no contractual or statutory basis for [a TSP] providing contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs under Applicants’ plan." (emphasis added) (I believe this is also the point Kevin Walsh is pressing.) If this is right, it would apparently follow that the government could not, for example, use Little Sisters' RFRA complaint itself (which articulates its religious objection) as a basis for asking a TPA to offer insurance coverage--a certification, as such, would be necessary. Whether this is true or not is a technical ERISA question that I am not equipped to answer. But it's not obvious what would turn on it for RFRA purposes, even if LS's account of ERISA were correct. To be sure, if Little Sisters is right that under current law a TPA could not offer the coverage absent a Little Sisters certification, that would make this case distinguishable from my pharmacist and war objector hypos, in both of which the third party could provide her services regardless of any religious objection by the principal party. It would, however, remain akin to my other hypo, in which Judge B, who has not been assigned to the controversial case, can only preside over the trial in question if Judge A recuses. Could Judge A both refuse to preside and refuse to recuse, so as to ensure that no one is able to preside over the trial? Isn't that the basic nature of the claim here? Moreover, this seems to me to be an especially formalistic objection, one that depends upon the current, technical contingencies of ERISA law. If Congress were to pass a law tomorrow saying that Third Party X, or Government Agency Y, can provide contraception coverage to an employer's employees if and only if the employer declines to do so--much as the ACA itself provides that individuals can obtain health insurance on an exchange only if their employer does not offer it--would Little Sisters be able to complain under RFRA that because their religious objection would be a but-for cause of the alternative means of coverage, they are entitled to an exemption ensuring that no such coverage can be provided by any party? This is an interesting question, I suppose, and one that might surface in the Notre Dame or other cases. But again, the important point for immediate purposes is that it doesn't matter here, given that Little Sisters' TPA will not voluntarily offer the contraception coverage, and the government disclaims any authority to require it to do so. Posted 10:55 PM by Marty Lederman [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |