Kathianne
03-29-2016, 06:42 PM
This is unusual:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032916zr_3d9g.pdf
(ORDER LIST: 577 U. S.)TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2016ORDER14-1418 ZUBIK, DAVID A. ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.14-1453 PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.14-1505 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-35 E. TX BAPTIST UNIV., ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS15-105 LITTLE SISTERS, ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-119 SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIV., ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-191 GENEVA COLLEGE V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs thataddress whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained bypetitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies,but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitionersbeyond their own decision to provide health insurance withoutcontraceptive coverage to their employees.
Petitioners with insured plans are currently required tosubmit a form either to their insurer or to the FederalGovernment (naming petitioners’ insurance company), stating thatpetitioners object on religious grounds to providingcontraceptive coverage. The parties are directed to addresswhether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without anysuch notice from petitioners.
For example, the parties should consider a situation inwhich petitioners would contract to provide health insurance fortheir employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their healthplan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which theyobject on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legalobligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not payfor such coverage, and would not be required to submit anyseparate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, orto their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurancecompany—aware that petitioners are not providing certaincontraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separatelynotify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company willprovide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverageis not paid for by petitioners and is not provided throughpetitioners’ health plan.
The parties may address other proposals along similarlines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.
The briefs, limited to a single brief 25 pages in lengthfor petitioners, and a single brief 20 pages in length forrespondents, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk andserved upon counsel for the other parties on or before April 12,2016. Reply briefs, limited to a single brief 10 pages in lengthfor petitioners and for respondents, are to be filedsimultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counselfor the other parties on or before April 20, 2016.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032916zr_3d9g.pdf
(ORDER LIST: 577 U. S.)TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2016ORDER14-1418 ZUBIK, DAVID A. ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.14-1453 PRIESTS FOR LIFE, ET AL. V. DEPT. OF H&HS, ET AL.14-1505 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-35 E. TX BAPTIST UNIV., ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS15-105 LITTLE SISTERS, ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-119 SOUTHERN NAZARENE UNIV., ET AL. V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.15-191 GENEVA COLLEGE V. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS, ET AL.
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs thataddress whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained bypetitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies,but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitionersbeyond their own decision to provide health insurance withoutcontraceptive coverage to their employees.
Petitioners with insured plans are currently required tosubmit a form either to their insurer or to the FederalGovernment (naming petitioners’ insurance company), stating thatpetitioners object on religious grounds to providingcontraceptive coverage. The parties are directed to addresswhether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without anysuch notice from petitioners.
For example, the parties should consider a situation inwhich petitioners would contract to provide health insurance fortheir employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their healthplan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which theyobject on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legalobligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not payfor such coverage, and would not be required to submit anyseparate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, orto their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ insurancecompany—aware that petitioners are not providing certaincontraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separatelynotify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company willprovide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverageis not paid for by petitioners and is not provided throughpetitioners’ health plan.
The parties may address other proposals along similarlines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.
The briefs, limited to a single brief 25 pages in lengthfor petitioners, and a single brief 20 pages in length forrespondents, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk andserved upon counsel for the other parties on or before April 12,2016. Reply briefs, limited to a single brief 10 pages in lengthfor petitioners and for respondents, are to be filedsimultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counselfor the other parties on or before April 20, 2016.