## Facts

- Federal regulations under the Affordable Care Act required group health plans and insurers to cover FDA-approved contraceptive methods and related counseling, subject to exemptions and accommodations for religious employers.
- Religious nonprofit organizations and religiously affiliated institutions that were not eligible for the full “church” exemption could use an accommodation by either submitting a specified form to their insurer/third-party administrator or notifying the federal government of their objection.
- Petitioners asserted that completing the form or sending notice substantially burdened their religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it made them complicit in contraceptive coverage they opposed.
- District court rulings varied, but the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits generally upheld the accommodation and rejected petitioners’ RFRA claims.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated multiple cases.
- After oral argument, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on whether employees could receive contraceptive coverage through insurers without any notice from petitioners.
- Following supplemental briefing, the Court vacated the appellate judgments and remanded for further proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the ACA contraceptive-coverage accommodation for religious nonprofits substantially burdens religious exercise under RFRA.
2. If so, whether the accommodation serves a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
3. Whether the cases should be resolved on the existing record or returned to lower courts in light of the parties’ clarified positions on possible alternative coverage mechanisms.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously (per curiam) vacated the judgments of the courts of appeals and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
- The Court did not decide whether the accommodation substantially burdened petitioners’ religious exercise, whether the government had a compelling interest, or whether the accommodation was the least restrictive means under RFRA.
- The Court directed that the parties be given an opportunity to develop an approach that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while ensuring covered women receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.
- The Court stated that nothing in its disposition limited the government’s ability to ensure cost-free contraceptive coverage or petitioners’ ability to continue to press RFRA objections.
- Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that the disposition did not endorse petitioners’ legal theory or invalidate the existing accommodation, and that lower courts could reach the same result again on remand.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Court may vacate and remand without reaching the merits when post-argument developments indicate the parties’ positions may allow a resolution consistent with competing legal interests.
- A vacatur-and-remand disposition that expressly disclaims a merits ruling does not decide whether a challenged policy violates RFRA’s substantial-burden, compelling-interest, or least-restrictive-means requirements.
- On remand, lower courts may allow time for the parties to explore alternative regulatory or contractual mechanisms that preserve statutory benefits for third parties while addressing asserted religious objections.

## Conclusion

The Court vacated and remanded consolidated RFRA challenges to the ACA contraceptive-coverage accommodation to permit consideration of possible alternative arrangements identified through supplemental briefing, while expressly declining to rule on RFRA’s application to the accommodation.


Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016)