Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
Religious Colleges

In Supreme Court Fight Over Contraception, Each Side Accuses the Other of Obstinance

By Peter Schmidt March 24, 2016
Protesters gathered on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Inside, the justices heard arguments over religious colleges’ objections to a requirement that their health-insurance plans include a contraception option.
Protesters gathered on Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court Building. Inside, the justices heard arguments over religious colleges’ objections to a requirement that their health-insurance plans include a contraception option.Chronicle Photo by Julia Schmalz
Washington

Lawyers for religious colleges and the Obama administration accused each other of making unreasonable demands on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to federal rules aimed at ensuring access to contraception coverage.

The court, for its part, seemed divided on the question of which side needs to bend — the faith-based organizations that morally object to even tangential involvement with insurance coverage for contraception, or government officials who have refused to grant such groups the same sorts of exemptions given to other types of employers.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Lawyers for religious colleges and the Obama administration accused each other of making unreasonable demands on Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a challenge to federal rules aimed at ensuring access to contraception coverage.

The court, for its part, seemed divided on the question of which side needs to bend — the faith-based organizations that morally object to even tangential involvement with insurance coverage for contraception, or government officials who have refused to grant such groups the same sorts of exemptions given to other types of employers.

Many of the justices’ remarks focused on a knotty legal question — when the federal government should grant exemptions to the law for religious reasons. The court also grappled with the logistical challenges that would arise from trying to accommodate faith-based organizations’ objections to contraception while ensuring that it remains readily available.

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing several of the colleges and other religious organizations before the court, said his clients “face a dilemma” that should be seen as prohibited under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 federal law intended to deter the government from burdening people’s exercise of religion.

“They can adhere to their religious beliefs and pay millions of dollars in penalties,” Mr. Clement said, “or they can take steps that they believe to be religiously and morally objectionable, and that the government deems necessary, for them to provide contraception coverage through their health-care plans.”

The U.S. solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., argued, however, that the federal government had made “a serious, thoughtful effort to respect” the religious beliefs of the organizations challenging its policy before the court. He accused the other side of demanding that the rights of employees who want contraceptive access be extinguished until Congress passes a new health law that provides it through “a separate, one-off, jerry-rigged” channel.

Prospects for Change

Argued before the court were seven separate cases, combined as Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418, involving challenges to the federal government’s carrying out of the Affordable Care Act. Among the nonprofit organizations that brought the lawsuits were seven religious colleges.

Eight U.S. appellate courts have heard such challenges to the law, and seven of them have ruled in favor of the federal government.

In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month, the Supreme Court is evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. If its 4-to-4 ideological split translates into a tie in the Zubik cases — an outcome that appears quite possible based on remarks the justices made on Wednesday — the appellate-court decisions under review would remain intact.

The religious organizations that object to offering such coverage are not required to provide it through their own insurance plans, but they must declare their intent to opt out to their insurer, a third-party administrator, or the Department of Health and Human Services. The government then works directly with the religious organization’s insurance provider or plan administrator to offer the contraception coverage, which the organization does not subsidize in any way.

The religious organizations that have challenged the federal law object on moral grounds to the opt-out notification requirement, arguing that it still requires them to violate their religious beliefs. They have called for the federal government to establish some other mechanism for providing contraception that does not involve them in any way.

ADVERTISEMENT

During oral arguments on Wednesday, the court’s conservative wing focused heavily on the question of whether the government should completely exempt faith-based groups, as it does with churches themselves.

When Solicitor General Verrilli said it would take a change in the law to create a new mechanism for providing such organizations’ employees with coverage, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. replied, “Well, the way constitutional objections work is, you might have to change current law.” Justice Roberts agreed with the assertion by lawyers for the religious organizations that the current law and regulations, in effect, “hijack” their insurance plans.

Saving Souls

The two lawyers for the religious organizations were challenged by the court’s liberal wing over their argument that their faith-based objections should trump the government’s interest in providing access to preventive health care.

Speaking to Mr. Clement, Justice Elena Kagan argued that his theory of the case hinges on a religious objection as “the end-all and the be-all.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how the government would be able to continue to function if it accommodated every claim that one of its requirements burdened religious beliefs. “Every believer that’s ever come before us, including the people in the military,” has said “my soul will be damned in some way,” she said.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer cited several examples of categories of people who do not get accommodations when their religious beliefs are offended by government action, such as Quakers who object to the use of their tax money to finance wars, or people who object to laws that protect blasphemy as free speech.

On the other side of the court’s ideological divide, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the federal government had not offered a good rationale for why it denies religious organizations the same exemption it gives churches themselves.

Justice Kagan argued, however, that if the court forced the federal government to offer all religious people the same exemptions granted to churches, Congress would decide “not to give an exemption at all.”

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at peter.schmidt@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the April 1, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Legal Challenges to Obama Health Law Could Cost Women

More News

Illustration showing the logos of Instragram, X, and TikTok being watch by a large digital eyeball
Race against the clock
Could New Social-Media Screening Create a Student-Visa Bottleneck?
Mangan-Censorship-0610.jpg
Academic Freedom
‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender
On the day of his retirement party, Bob Morse poses for a portrait in the Washington, D.C., offices of U.S. News and World Report in June 2025. Morse led the magazine's influential and controversial college rankings efforts since its inception in 1988. Michael Theis, The Chronicle.
List Legacy
‘U.S. News’ Rankings Guru, Soon to Retire, Reflects on the Role He’s Played in Higher Ed
Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits

From The Review

A stack of coins falling over. Motion blur. Falling economy concept. Isolated on white.
The Review | Opinion
Will We Get a More Moderate Endowment Tax?
By Phillip Levine
Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Latest Awful Ed-Tech Buzzword: “Learnings”
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein

Upcoming Events

07-16-Advising-InsideTrack - forum assets v1_Plain.png
The Evolving Work of College Advising
Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin