The Supreme Court announced today that it was not going to make a decision on the contraception case that was brought to the court this spring. The case has to do with whether employers should provide birth control as a part of their workers’ health coverage, even if it is against religious beliefs. According to The New York Times, the decision will be left up to lower courts to decide.
In order to avoid deadlock in the court, which appeared likely based on Monday’s announcement, the Supreme Court “instructed lower courts to explore whether a compromise” would be possible between the two parties. Otherwise, the length of time it takes for any changes to be put into place, as well as how long women might go without potential contraception options, could be extended.
“Given the gravity of the dispute…the parties on remand should be afforded the opportunity to arrive at a [compromise] going forward,” read the unanimous decision, according to the Times. This “punt,” or sending the case down to lower courts to decide on a compromise, is likely because the Supreme Court probably would have tied on the issue 4-4. CNN reported that this is just one of the reasons why Obama’s administration is pushing to have their Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, approved by Senate after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
The original case, Zubik v. Burwell, was made on the grounds that religiously-affiliated organizations did not find it ethical to provide some or all birth control to their female employees—such “conduct” might go against their faith. The judges in support of this position argued that forcing private companies to comply with a ruling that required them to provide contraception would be “‘hijack’[ing] the insurance plans of” the companies.
“that women…’receive full & equal health coverage including contraceptive’ the court said” https://t.co/oaVsOJHCGP pic.twitter.com/9j6pmppOLr
— Rob Halperin (@RobHalperin) May 16, 2016
This case is extremely complicated, as it brings in issues of both reproductive and religious freedoms. For the U.S. Supreme Court, this remains a gray area. The reason this case made it to the highest court in America is because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which says that federal bills that pose “a substantial burden on religious practices” must be “subject to an exceptionally demanding form of judicial scrutiny.” Basically meaning that only high courts should rule on religious freedom cases like this.
If the individuals against the employers providing contraception do win the case in the lower courts, a compromise can still be made. There are alternate means of getting contraception to employees. For example, the companies could pay for insurance for the women without including contraception payment. Under Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act), insurance companies pay for contraception either way. This solution would “not establish a substantial burden” on the religiously-affiliated companies, and would apparently get female staff the reproductive solution they deserve as U.S. citizens.
It remains to be seen whether the lower courts will decide on a compromise. If not, many people wonder if reproductive (i.e., human) rights will precede religious rights. Is the Supreme Court’s “punt” of the case to try to find a compromise a smart move, or is the court just stuck in deadlock on any large issue without a new justice to replace Scalia?