Thursday, August 13, 2015

First Government opposition brief in nonprofit cases challenging the contraceptive coverage accommodation

Marty Lederman

On Wednesday, the Solicitor General filed this brief in opposition to the two petitions for certiorari from the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Priests for Life.  He argues that Supreme Court review is not warranted because all six courts of appeals to have ruled thus far have "correctly rejected petitioners’ RFRA challenge to the accommodation, which exempts petitioners from any obligation to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage for employees or their beneficiaries."  He does, however, signal (pp.30-31) that if and when the Court decides to consider the question, it should grant the petition in No. 14-1505, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell, principally for the reasons I discussed in this post.

[UPDATE:  On August 25, petitioners filed their reply brief in No. 14-1505, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell.]

Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases

Older Posts
Newer Posts