Yesterday I wrote a SCOTUSBlog post on narrowing from below and Supreme Court signals — two ideas from a recent article of mine. Zubik questions whether the Health and Human Services contraceptive-coverage mandate and its … (Joshua Roberts/Reuters) This week, the Supreme Court will hear a series of oral arguments in a number of cases via telephone, due to the coronavirus outbreak. This noble religious order, standing firm for a large portion of a decade, had hoped that the Supreme Court would resolve the issue on the merits in 2016 in the Zubik v Burwell case of which the LSP were a part. Issue: Whether the HHS contraceptive-coverage mandate and its “accommodation” violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest.

However, due to Justice Scalia’s untimely death, the court was split four vs. four on the issue. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. One of … ISSUE ADVISORY: Zubik v. Burwell – Religious Discrimination Threatens BC Access By: Jan Erickson, NOW Government Relations Director, and Charlotte Moller, NOW Government Relations Intern March 14, 2016. Sister Loraine McGuire with Little Sisters of the Poor after the Supreme Court heard Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal demanding exemption from providing insurance covering contraception, in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2016. On March 23 rd, the Supreme Court will hear the case Zubik v. Burwell. Supreme Court TOP Per Curiam. Zubik v. Burwell was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Here’s a paragraph on narrowing from below and how it differs from overruling: To account … - Scotusblog: Zubik v. Burwell. The post updates the article in a couple ways, particularly by discussing signals’ surprisingly important role in the contraception coverage case Zubik v. Burwell. ZUBIK v. BURWELL; ZUBIK v. BURWELL .