filed. Of course, HHS is aware of Wheaton's third-party administrator in this case. Brief amicus curiae of Women Speak for Themselves filed. The first presidential debate was chaotic. 2751, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2014), the Court described the accommodation as "a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage." Belligerent Trump debate performance stokes fears among Republicans about November. (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, et al. It is not unusual for orders responding to an emergency request to be unsigned. The Government rightly accepts that attestation at face value; it does not question whether an organization's views are sincere. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2015. VIDED. Today's grant of injunctive relief simply does not square with the Court's reasoning in Hobby Lobby. New, Ph.D., Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Party name: Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. VIDED. The federal government can’t force owners of closely held for-profit companies to provide birth control to female employees if they object to the requirement on religious grounds, the court said. The applicant contends, by contrast, that the obligations of its health insurance issuer and third-party administrator are dependent on their receipt of notice that the applicant objects to the contraceptive coverage requirement. filed. Wheaton asks us to enjoin the enforcement of a duly enacted law and duly promulgated regulations before the courts below have passed on the merits of its legal challenge. § 147.131(a); http://hrsa.gov/womensguidelines (as visited July 2, 2014, and available in Clerk of Court's case file). The front asks the applicant to attest to the foregoing representations; the back notifies third-party administrators of their regulatory obligations. Supreme Court of United States.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. (Distributed). Sotomayor disagreed. Brief amicus curiae of Eternal Word Television Network filed.

(Response due July 2, 2015). Brief amici curiae of The Catholic Benefits Association, et al. Even if one accepts Wheaton's view that the self-certification procedure violates RFRA, that would not justify the Court's action today. The ruling Thursday says Wheaton need only file a letter with the federal government stating the college’s religious objections. The Court's actions in this case create unnecessary costs and layers of bureaucracy, and they ignore a simple truth: The Government must be allowed to handle the basic tasks of public administration in a manner that comports with common sense. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. However, the new rule was halted in late December by judges in California and Pennsylvania. media.relations@wheaton.edu, Wheaton College wins battle against HHS mandate, Outdoor Center for Leadership Development at HoneyRock, The Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies, Wheaton Center for Faith, Politics, and Economics, Emily Miller Awarded Shared Justice Research Prize, Princeton Review Colleges That Pay You Back List, Dr. Eckert New Book on Educational Leadership, C.S. 13A1284. VIDED.

Brief of Petitioners in Nos.14-1418, 14-1453 & 14-1505 filed. filed. So nothing necessitates intervention in order to "`aid ... our jurisdiction,'" Turner Broadcasting System, 507 U.S., at 1301, 113 S.Ct.

Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014). Indeed, as justification for its decision in Hobby Lobby — issued just this week — the very Members of the Court that now vote to grant injunctive relief concluded that the accommodation "constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty."

The motion of Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, et al. VIDED. VIDED. 8725 (2012) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). But what about other cases? It is understandable that a religious nonprofit educational institution, such as Wheaton College, would oppose the contraceptive mandate as a violation of its religious principles. VIDED. New, Ph.D., Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute filed. VIDED. Id., at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). VIDED. In providing the accommodation for which Wheaton is eligible, the Government has done a salutary thing: exempt religious organizations from a requirement that might otherwise burden them. VIDED.

(Distributed), Brief amici curiae of The Center for Inquiry, and American Atheists filed. Party name: American Academy of Pediatrics. VIDED. filed. It is not at all clear to me how the Government could administer the religious nonprofit accommodation if Wheaton were to prevail. Party name: Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, et al. VIDED. These services include "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration ... approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a provider." VIDED. 77 Fed. v. Burwell (Wheaton College I), 134 S. Ct. 2806, 2807 (2014). Or purchase a subscription for unlimited access to real news you can count on. VIDED. 1806 (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).3 To understand how high a bar that second prong is, consider that this Court has previously pointed to differences of opinion among lower courts as proof positive that the standard has not been met. In a short order issued three days after its decision in Hobby Lobby , the Court exempted Wheaton from the requirements of submitting EBSA Form 700 and sending copies to health insurance issuers or third-party administrators. 2 .

“The government should just give up its effort to use heavy IRS fines to force people to violate their faith.”.

VIDED. Yet, without pause, the Court essentially does just that.6.

The application for an order recalling and staying the issuance of the mandate of the Court of Appeals pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, having been submitted to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court, the application as presented is denied. WHEATON COLLEGE v. Sylvia BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

Party name: Cato Institute and Independent Women's Forum.

Party name: The Center for Inquiry, and American Atheists. And the Wheaton College case is one of dozens that object to a compromise the Obama administration has offered to religious organizations, hospitals and ­colleges.

(Distributed), Supplemental reply brief of petitioners filed. Yet Wheaton maintains that taking these steps to avail itself of the accommodation would substantially burden its religious exercise.

Letter and attached Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit received from counsel for the respondent. filed. Wheaton applied to Justice KAGAN, in her capacity as Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit, for an emergency injunction against enforcement of the law and regulations pending resolution of its legal challenge. Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed. Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. filed. The cases are consolidated. Wheaton, for religious reasons, categorically opposes the provision of contraceptive services. Party name: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, et al. VIDED. Party name: Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. Party name: Michael J. Nothing in this order precludes the Government from relying on this notice, to the extent it considers it necessary, to facilitate the provision of full contraceptive coverage under the Act. VIDED. Supplemental brief of petitioners David A. Zubik, et al. VIDED. in opposition filed. She said the injunction “risks depriving hundreds of Wheaton’s employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage.” And since the other ­cases around the country are indistinguishable, she said, the order might as well be national in scope. 119, through its implementing regulations, requires employer group health insurance plans to cover contraceptive services without cost sharing. VIDED. VIDED.

The three female justices of the Supreme Court sharply rebuked their colleagues Thursday for siding with a Christian college in the latest battle over providing women with contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, saying the court was retreating from assurances offered only days ago.

But the applicant has already notified the Government— Its order grants injunctive relief so long as Wheaton "informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a non-profit organization that holds itself out as religious and has religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services." “I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs,” she wrote. “But thinking one’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened — no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be — does not make it so.”. VIDED. VIDED. See Order in No. That is why, in 2012, after receiving no response from HHS to its concerns, Wheaton filed a lawsuit to defend its right to operate according to its religious principles. The organizations do not have to pay for the coverage, and the cost is borne by the government or in other ways. The owners of the companies said those contraceptives violated their religious beliefs. VIDED. Rather, given the posture of this application — for an emergency injunction under the All Writs Act — division of authority is reason not to grant relief. The Seventh Circuit in turn denied Wheaton's motion for an injunction pending appeal. In doing so, it relied on this Court's pronouncement in Hobby Lobby "that the accommodation provision (applicable in this case) `constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government's aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty." (Distributed), Brief amicus curiae of Compassion & Choices filed. After determining through supplemental briefing that insurance companies could provide contraceptive coverage to employees of organizations that object to such coverage on religious grounds without the organizations needing to provide notification, the Court vacated the case for further consideration by the lower courts in light of this agreement from the parties. VIDED. The court’s order noted that lower courts were divided on the question of whether the form still imposed a burden on the religious organizations. Party name: Foreign and International Law Experts Lawrence O. Gostin, et al. VIDED.