The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday remanded [opinion, PDF] a group of cases challenging the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [text, PDF] to the lower courts for further proceedings. The cases, consolidated as Zubik v. Burwell [SCOUTSblog materials], question whether the mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, whether the mandate serves a “compelling government interest,” and whether the government acted with the “least restrictive means” in achieving that interest. After hearing oral argument in March, the court requested supplemental briefs [JURIST reports] to “address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.” In a per curiam opinion Monday, the court wrote:

Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. … The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”

In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D. C. Circuits.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a concurring opinion to emphasize that the court had not ruled on the merits and that “the Courts of Appeals remain free to reach the same conclusion or a different one on each of the questions presented by these cases.”

The Supreme Court granted certiorari [JURIST report] in seven cases in November, which were then consolidated into the present case. Petitioners, religious non-profit institutions, challenged aspects of the birth control mandate under the health care reform laws in the US. The mandate has caused a great deal of controversy throughout the country sine its implementation. In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that for-profit businesses that are “closely held” (i.e., owned by a small number of individuals) may be exempted [JURIST report] from the birth-control mandate of the ACA if the owners had a religious objection to one or more mandated birth control devices or methods, in addition to the non-profit exception.