���ϳԹ���

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued an unusual order indicating that the justices are trying to avoid a 4-to-4 deadlock in a case pitting religious freedom against access to contraception. The order, which was unsigned, directed the parties to file supplemental briefs in Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418, which was argued on Wednesday. The case was brought by religious groups that object to providing insurance coverage for contraception to their female workers. (Liptak, 3/29)

As for the potential compromise, the justices asked the lawyers specifically if the religious organizations might inform their insurers when initially contracting for insurance that they do not wish to offer contraceptive coverage. At that point, the insurance company, “aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds — would separately notify petitioners’ employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners’ health plan.” (Rovner, 3/29)

The court set an April 20 deadline, suggesting that the justices want to resolve the case by late June. A 4-4 tie would leave different rules in place in different parts of the country because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings. (3/29)

The court’s request will require plaintiffs to review their legal and theological positions. To date, Catholic bishops, in particular, have said they object to any system that uses their health plan as a vehicle for providing something they believe to be immoral, even if they are not directly involved in handling or paying for contraception. But some critics have said the bishops have much to lose from an adverse ruling and that they may be better off claiming a victory if the opportunity presents itself. The Obama administration could face a similar dilemma. Federal officials have worked for years to refine a system that they believe could address religious objections—while simultaneously responding to calls from women’s groups that they hold firm on keeping contraception covered for everyone through the Affordable Care Act. (Kendall and Radnofsky, 3/29)

The rare, post-oral argument order in the already contentious case provided new glimmers of hope to both sides. The challengers believe the order means the court won’t uphold the existing accommodation. "They wouldn’t be asking about alternatives to the accommodation if they [found it acceptable],” said Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents an order of Catholic nuns, Little Sisters of the Poor, in the case. But government allies are heartened that the court appears strongly concerned with ensuring that employees can seamlessly access contraception through their health plans. (Haberkorn, 3/29)

The reality of an ideologically divided, evenly split, one-man-down Supreme Court became apparent Tuesday: The justices deadlocked on a major organized-labor case and tried to avoid a second stalemate by floating their own policy compromise on the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. The actions underscored how the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has upended business as usual at the Supreme Court. They also provided a preview of the kind of tentative decisions that may be all the eight-member court can muster as it faces a docket filled with election-year controversies. (Barnes, 3/29)

The post-Scalia era burst forth Tuesday at the Supreme Court in a pair of developments that reveal the new dynamic of an eight-member panel equally divided between conservatives and liberals. ... In a separate order later Tuesday, the justices took the extraordinary step of framing their own compromise to a dispute between religious organizations opposed to contraception and the Obama administration, which seeks to ensure female employees receive insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. At last week’s arguments the case appeared headed for another 4-4 split between the court’s conservatives and liberals. (Bravin, 3/29)