{ "id": "R44422", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44422", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453971, "date": "2016-06-16", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:51:51.710987", "title": "Nonprofit Challenges to the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement: The Meaning of Substantial Burdens on Religious Exercise Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act", "summary": "In the spring of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a set of challenges alleging that the contraceptive coverage regulations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Following oral arguments in which the eight sitting Justices appeared to be evenly divided, the Court unanimously declined to declare an answer in the set of seven consolidated cases, each brought by nonprofit religious entities with objections to the provision and use of contraceptives as well as to the process by which their objections may be accommodated under ACA regulations that require employers to provide contraceptive coverage in group health plans. The question at issue is whether the accommodation process\u2014requiring employers with religious objections to inform the government of their objection and third-party insurers to provide required coverage to the employer\u2019s employees\u2014would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA. \nThe Court\u2019s consideration of these cases (consolidated under the case name Zubik v. Burwell and referred to collectively throughout this report as \u201cthe nonprofit challenges\u201d) followed its landmark 2014 decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which has had ongoing implications for a number of legal and legislative issues. Hobby Lobby expanded the scope of entities recognized as eligible for protection under RFRA, but left open a number of other questions about how far RFRA\u2019s protection may extend, including what governmental actions might constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise prohibited under RFRA. Federal courts have been divided on the standard for recognizing a substantial burden in many cases, particularly in challenges to the ACA regulations. \nProviding no decision on the merits, the Court vacated the appellate court decisions in each of the seven cases and remanded those cases to the respective federal circuit courts with instructions to reconsider the cases after giving the parties an opportunity to \u201carrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners\u2019 religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women ... receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.\u2019\u201d The Court\u2019s action effectively means that the legal debate over RFRA\u2019s protections will continue to be litigated and could be expected to return to the Court in a later term, which could be of interest related to the Senate\u2019s consideration of a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Court.\nA decision regarding what might constitute a substantial burden could have significant implications on RFRA claims not only related to the contraceptive coverage requirement, but also for a range of other issues being litigated in courts and considered in legislatures, both on the federal and state level. RFRA applies to all federal actions, unless specifically exempted by Congress, meaning that the impacts of its interpretation may affect a broad number of legislative issues. Additionally, a number of states have enacted state versions, the interpretation of which may be influenced by the Court\u2019s decisions. For example, organizations with religious objections to same-sex relationships have sought protection under RFRA for requirements to serve same-sex couples, including service by public accommodations; participation of religious providers in social service programs; and admission programs in religious institutions of higher education. \nThis report examines the current parameters on governmental restrictions on religious exercise. It discusses the history of federal protection offered under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RFRA, and notes parallel protections available at the state level. It analyzes the current interpretations of RFRA as applied to the contraceptive coverage requirement of the ACA, including discussion of Hobby Lobby and a review of the lower courts\u2019 interpretations of the nonprofit challenges. Finally, the report highlights a range of issue areas of interest to Congress that may be affected by the interpretation of RFRA.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44422", "sha1": "e134d1349bfcc80c3bce875956a7108dad1dc439", "filename": "files/20160616_R44422_e134d1349bfcc80c3bce875956a7108dad1dc439.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44422", "sha1": "dd2cd0be96c49c606153814ebf076828eb346e71", "filename": "files/20160616_R44422_dd2cd0be96c49c606153814ebf076828eb346e71.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4846, "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450977, "date": "2016-03-21", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:50:07.701492", "title": "Nonprofit Challenges to the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement: The Meaning of Substantial Burdens on Religious Exercise Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act", "summary": "In the spring of 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a set of challenges alleging that the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court has consolidated seven cases for review, each brought by nonprofit religious entities that have religious objections to the provision and use of contraceptives and that also object to the process by which their objections may be accommodated under ACA regulations that require employers to provide contraceptive coverage in group health plans. The question at the heart of these challenges is whether the accommodation process\u2014requiring employers with religious objections to inform the government of their objection and third-party insurers to provide required coverage to the employer\u2019s employees\u2014would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA.\nThe Court\u2019s consideration of these cases (consolidated under the case name Zubik v. Burwell and referred to collectively throughout this report as \u201cthe nonprofit challenges\u201d) follows its landmark 2014 decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which has had ongoing implications for a number of legal and legislative issues. Hobby Lobby expanded the scope of entities recognized as eligible for protection under RFRA, but left open a number of other questions about how far RFRA\u2019s protection may extend, including what governmental actions might constitute a \u201csubstantial burden\u201d on religious exercise prohibited under RFRA. Federal courts have been divided on the standard for recognizing a substantial burden in many cases, particularly in challenges to the ACA regulations. \nWhile the Court\u2019s decision almost certainly will provide clarification of RFRA\u2019s application to the contraceptive coverage requirement, it also likely will impact RFRA claims in a range of other issues being litigated in courts and considered in legislatures, both on the federal and state level. RFRA applies to all federal actions, unless specifically exempted by Congress, meaning that the impacts of its interpretation may affect a broad number of legislative issues. Additionally, a number of states have enacted state versions, the interpretation of which may be influenced by the Court\u2019s decisions. For example, organizations with religious objections to same-sex relationships have sought protection under RFRA for requirements to serve same-sex couples, including service by public accommodations; participation of religious providers in social service programs; and admission programs in religious institutions of higher education. Religious objections to other governmental mandates may affect other issues as well (e.g., abortion, health care, etc.).\nThis report examines the current parameters on governmental restrictions on religious exercise. It discusses the history of federal protection offered under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and RFRA, and notes parallel protections available at the state level. It analyzes the current interpretations of RFRA as applied to the contraceptive coverage requirement of the ACA, including discussion of Hobby Lobby and a review of the lower courts\u2019 interpretations of the nonprofit challenges. Finally, the report highlights a range of issue areas of interest to Congress that may be affected by the Court\u2019s interpretation of RFRA.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44422", "sha1": "2705d8524b3b6a16f7f2dfde437298040e072286", "filename": "files/20160321_R44422_2705d8524b3b6a16f7f2dfde437298040e072286.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44422", "sha1": "5669ba0bbda57ba2d877610221111873e81611c7", "filename": "files/20160321_R44422_5669ba0bbda57ba2d877610221111873e81611c7.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }