Short Answer: Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court
The Little Sisters of the Poor is a group of Roman Catholic nuns who operate nursing homes for the elderly poor. In 2016, they were involved in a highly publicized legal battle with the US government over their religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage to employees. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was ultimately decided in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor.
How Did the Little Sisters of the Poor Case End Up in the Supreme Court?
The case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania has been a hot topic in the U.S. legal system for several years. The Supreme Court made a decision this summer, ruling in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, but what led to this landmark case being heard by our nation’s highest court?
In 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare. One section of the ACA required employers to provide health insurance coverage that included contraceptive services without any cost-sharing from employees. However, many religious organizations objected to this mandate because it went against their beliefs and teachings.
Religious exemptions were initially established under the ACA, but they were more limited than what some religious groups wanted. After years of litigation and court rulings, including two notable cases in which Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College won exemptions from providing contraceptives on religious grounds, a compromise was reached between the government and faith-based organizations.
This compromise established an “accommodation” process that allowed eligible organizations to opt-out of providing contraceptive coverage to their employees while still ensuring that employees would have access to these services through alternative means. Religious non-profits could file an objection form with their insurer or third-party administrator stating their objection to contraception coverage on moral or religious grounds.
However, even this accommodation process was contested by some religious organizations who argued that filling out such forms still violated their beliefs by making them complicit in providing contraceptive services. One group among them was the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who run homes for elderly individuals across the country.
The Little Sisters argue that signing such forms violates their conscience by authorizing others to provide contraception on their behalf. They sued various government agencies in 2013 for violating their First Amendment rights and those protected under federal law designed specifically to protect religious freedom – The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The RFRA enforces “religious protections that are alive and well in federal law” and places “substantial, significant pressure on the government,” says former Supreme Court clerk Charles Rothfeld.
This brings us to the heart of the case: whether or not the accommodation process can be reviewed under RFRA. The Little Sisters ultimately prevailed in a circuit court ruling by relying on RFRA’s “least restrictive means” requirement, which states that even a generally applicable law cannot substantially burden religious exercise unless it is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra argued against religious entities being allowed “to use objections to completely opt-out of their obligations” while others said they were trying to protect women who rely on employers for health care.
The final decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in July 2020, ruling 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor. The Court held that “the Departments had the statutory authority to craft that exemption, as well as the contemporaneously issued moral exemption.” In other words,
Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court Ruling: A Step-by-Step Breakdown
The Little Sisters of the Poor Supreme Court ruling is a significant decision that demonstrates the importance of religious freedom and the role of government in protecting it. The case involves a group of nuns, called the Little Sisters of the Poor, who provide care for elderly individuals. These nuns have been engaged in a legal battle with the federal government over contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
In 2010, Congress passed the ACA, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for their employees. The law mandates that healthcare plans must include “preventive services” for women without cost-sharing or copayments. This provision includes contraception as one of these preventive services.
However, this requirement goes against the religious beliefs held by some organizations, like Little Sisters of the Poor. They argue that providing contraceptives to their employees would violate their religious beliefs and put them in moral quandaries if they were involved in facilitating access to abortifacients through health insurance coverage.
In 2011, HHS released regulations that exempted certain churches from this mandate but left out similarly situated faith-based groups like Little Sisters of the Poor from having a meaningful exemption even though such entities are an integral part of church ministries – they take vows and abide by Catholic teachings regarding sex; other Catholic groups exist too such as schools or adoption agencies that operate similarly under church authority. After various attempts at legislation and negotiations between interested parties failed time after time including efforts by President Obama’s administration’s own advisors who among other things urged broader conscience protections on matters beyond just contraception coverage ; therefore resulting with lawsuits led by religious non-profits challenging whether they can be compelled by law to act contrary to their deeply held religious convictions about life.
This issue has been debated extensively over several years with litigation proceeding first against HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and later replaced by current Health and Human Services Alex Azar followed by his predecessor Tom Price both Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Greg Abbott (R-TX) provided support for the cause among other entities.
The case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania eventually reached the Supreme Court on May 6, 2020. The court’s decision in favor of the nuns was announced on July 8, 2020.
Here’s a breakdown of how that ruling came about:
Step One: The lower courts decide against Little Sisters
After many years in court and previously having won at the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell where parties were asked to find some kind of resolution outside of litigation, Little Sisters found themselves being sued again – this time by California and Pennsylvania along with New Jersey citing two arguments raised: first, religious organizations that are Title X grantees cannot invoke RFRA protection since doing so would unlawfully “flip unconstitutional conditions into exemptions even though there is no language within Title X which removes or abridges it”; secondly they challenged Trump administration’s adoption of rules under ACA that relieved objecting employers from participating in providing
1. The Case’s Background
To understand the significance of this case, it is important to review its background. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which required employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover contraception as part of preventative care for women. However, religious institutions were originally granted an exemption from providing such coverage for their employees.
In 2013, after much controversy and debate surrounding this issue and litigation pending in several courts around the country, the federal government created a compromise agreement designed to protect these employers’ religious freedom while also ensuring female employees continue receiving contraceptive coverage.
The Little Sisters objected on religious grounds asserting that filling out paperwork stating their objection would essentially authorize others to provide contraceptives contrary to their faith teachings and thus violate their deeply held beliefs.
2. Who are The Little Sisters Of The Poor?
The Little Sisters of the Poor is a Roman Catholic order who provides care for impoverished elderly people across more than 30 countries worldwide with over two hundred homes and centers cared for by approximately 2,000 sisters including about eighty residing in twelve locations statewide throughout Pennsylvania..
For them it means providing life-affirming relief services through prayerful support, person-centered care and direct accommodations like shelter or medicine whenever possible.
3. Their Legal Battle Has Been Ongoing for Years
This Supreme Court case concerning whether religious-affiliated groups are allowed under federal law known as ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) to claim “conscience protection” exemptions from providing contraception coverage has raged on since seven years ago when regulation was initially proposed.
After numerous appeals and alterations, the Trump Administration passed a rule in 2018 which broadened the so-called conscience exemption scope to religious or moral objections. Legal challenges followed on both sides of the argument; however, the recent Supreme Court arguments were focused on technical issues of regulatory procedure.
4. The Decision’s Impact
The ultimate decision in this case could have wide-reaching impacts beyond just contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated organizations who may feel that their faith is being encroached upon by current legal requirements.
This ongoing case also points to larger debates over separation of church and state amidst contentious discussions about healthcare rights and how they intersect with various religious beliefs protected under law.
5. What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will review all arguments made on both sides and make a final decision that will impact not only the Little Sisters of the Poor but countless other organizations with differing opinions throughout America including national business heavyweights like Walmart who filed an amicus brief in support of EEOC regulations allowing views opposing accommodation mandates to be heard as valid too.
A ruling will likely occur in June when this term
