Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Zubik v. Burwell

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawReligious Freedom Restoration ActContraceptive CoverageRFRAcontraceptive mandatenonprofit employersreligious objectionvacate and remand

Facts

Petitioners are primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations required them to cover certain contraceptives unless they submitted a form to their insurer or to the Federal Government stating their religious objection. Petitioners alleged that submitting that notice substantially burdened their religious exercise under RFRA. In supplemental briefing, petitioners stated their religious exercise would not be infringed if they only had to contract for a plan excluding some or all contraceptive coverage, and the Government confirmed that for employers with insured plans the procedures could be modified to operate that way while still providing seamless contraceptive coverage.

Issue

In light of the parties' supplemental submissions, should the Court decide the RFRA merits itself, or instead vacate the judgments below and remand so the parties and lower courts can consider an approach that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise while ensuring contraceptive coverage for affected women?

Rule

When post-argument developments and supplemental briefing materially clarify the parties' positions and indicate a feasible alternative approach, the Court may vacate the judgments below and remand for the lower courts and parties to address implementation in the first instance, without expressing any view on the merits.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Several religious nonprofits in Pennsylvania challenge a federal health-benefits rule in separate courts of appeals. After oral argument in the Supreme Court, both sides file supplemental briefs agreeing that, for insured plans, employees could receive the disputed benefit through the same insurer even if the nonprofits do nothing beyond buying a plan that excludes that benefit, though they still disagree about mechanics.

What is the most appropriate Supreme Court disposition under the majority opinion's approach?

Explanation. When post-argument submissions substantially clarify the parties' positions and indicate a feasible alternative that may accommodate both sides' interests, the Court may vacate and remand rather than decide the merits itself. The majority stressed that unresolved implementation issues should first be handled by the lower courts and the parties, and it expressly declined to resolve the RFRA merits. (Derived from Zubik v. Burwell (n.d.).)