March, 23 2016, 11:00am EDT
Supreme Court to Hear Case Brought by Employers Trying to Block Employees' Birth Control Coverage
Zubik v. Burwell Raises Question Whether The Opt-Out for Employers Who Object to Contraceptive Coverage Violates Employer’s Religious Exercise
WASHINGTON
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case brought by religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations that object on religious grounds to the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance companies cover contraception and to the process by which these employers can opt out of providing the coverage.
A religiously affiliated non-profit organization or a closely held for-profit corporation can currently lodge an objection with its insurer or the federal government. The insurance company then provides contraception coverage directly to the employees in a separate insurance plan.
"This case presents a radical argument about the scope of religious liberty, one with grave implications for the constitution and for American women," said American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling. "The question is, will the Court sanction the use of religion to discriminate? Our constitution indeed protects the right of religious freedom but shields Americans from having religious beliefs forced on them."
Today's case, Zubik v. Burwell, is a consolidation of seven cases from lower Courts. To date, nine circuit courts have addressed the argument before the Court - that the opt-out process violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Eight, including the four that heard the cases before the Court, have rejected the claim.
Two years ago, in Hobby Lobby, the Court held that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when it required for-profit organizations - like Hobby Lobby - to provide coverage over their religious objections. In so holding, the Court emphasized that the government had "at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs," namely the opt-out. That opt-out process is the one now being challenged as violating RFRA.
This case is one occasion in which institutions are arguing their religion beliefs entitle them to discriminate or to deny services. More than 100 bills have been introduced in 2016 alone that threaten to allow public officials and businesses to turn people away because of who they are. The Washington and Colorado Supreme Courts will soon hear cases in which businesses assert a right, based on their faith, to deny services to same-sex couples. And today, the ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan will argue in a case where religiously affiliated hospitals are refusing women emergency abortion care.
More on Zubik v. Burwell available at:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/zubik-v-burwell
More on the ACLU's work to stop discrimination in the name of religion:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Trump Asylum Crackdown Dealt Major Blow in 'Hugely Important' Court Ruling
"Nothing in the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority asserted," wrote a U.S. district judge.
Jul 02, 2025
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cruel Betrayal': Educators Furious Over Trump Funding Freeze for School Programs
One Democratic senator called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law."
Jul 02, 2025
The Trump administration informed state education agencies on Monday that it would not release over $6 billion in previously approved federal funding for schools—sparking outcry from teachers unions, Democratic lawmakers, and education-focused groups who called the move harmful to students.
In an unsigned email, Education Department staff told states that they would not be dispersing any money from five programs that focus on issues including migrant education, before- and after-school programs, English learner services, and more.
"Given the change in administrations, the department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding for the [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] grant program(s), and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming year," according to the email, which was obtained by NPR.
Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that promotes access to after-school programs for kids, called the funding loss "catastrophic," according to The New York Times.
Grant's organization is sounding the alarm that loss of funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, one of the programs targeted, could mean that 10,000 after-school and summer programs could close their doors for the 2025-26 school year. Over a million children are at risk of losing their programs as soon as this summer, according to the Afterschool Alliance.
The email came one day before the federal government was scheduled to disperse the money, on July 1. The funding had been previously approved by Congress in a continuing budget resolution that passed in March.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law. The appropriations law passed by Congress requires this money to be spent."
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union, also called it unlawful. "This is another illegal usurpation of the authority of the Congress. Plus it directly harms the children in our nation," she said in a statement on Tuesday.
According to Education Week, a 2026 federal budget proposal from the White House unveiled last month seeks to eliminate all five of the education programs targeted in this week's funding freeze, meaning this move from the Trump administration is essentially the White House advancing its priorities early, without Congress' consideration.
"Withholding billions in promised federal education funding that students need—and states had planned to use to support children in their states—is a cruel betrayal of students, especially those who rely on critical support services," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, in a statement on Tuesday.
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education—starving it of resources, sowing distrust, and pushing privatization at the expense of the nation's most vulnerable students," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular