Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

SCOTUS Expands Exemptions to ACA Contraceptive Mandate For Employers With Moral or Religious Oppositions

By Alan H. Bowie, Jr., Nick Zaino & Mark Williams on July 14, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) held in a 7-2 decision that employers may exclude birth control from their health care plans if they have moral or religious oppositions to contraception. This decision upheld the Trump Administration’s November 2018 final rules which provide exceptions to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) mandate requiring covered employers to provide women with contraceptive coverage with no cost sharing.

By way of background, the final rules provide exemptions to the contraceptive mandate for religious organizations (such as churches) and employers with sincerely held religious beliefs, including publicly traded employers. The final rules also provide a similar “moral exemption” for employers—including non-profit and for-profit entities with no publicly traded components—with “sincerely held moral” objections to providing some or all forms of contraceptive coverage. These final rules were enjoined by lower courts prior to the appeal to SCOTUS by the Trump Administration and an organization called Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home.

SCOTUS upheld the Trump Administration’s final rules on the grounds that ACA grants government agencies the authority to promulgate religious and moral exemptions. Specifically, the Court stated that the Health Resources and Services Administration had “broad discretion to define preventative care and screenings and to create religious and moral exemptions.” Two concurring members of the Court’s Majority noted that the decision was made solely on this basis and that the final rules may be subject to a successful challenge under the “arbitrary and capricious” test for administrative rules.

Although this decision provides an expanded exemption for employers nationally, Connecticut’s exemptions are far narrower. For insured plans in Connecticut, there is a mandate to cover contraceptives and only religious employers and certain hospital and health care centers owned by religious organizations that object to such coverage are exempt. Religious employers include a church, an elementary or secondary school which is controlled or operated or principally supported by a church, as well as a church-controlled tax-exempt organization.

Photo of Alan H. Bowie, Jr. Alan H. Bowie, Jr.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A. Davis, Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Read more about Alan H. Bowie, Jr.Email
Show more Show less
Photo of Nick Zaino Nick Zaino

Domenico Zaino is a partner and co-practice group leader of the firm’s Business and Personal Services Group. He practices primarily in the area of labor and employment law and has extensive experience counseling, representing, and training employers on all aspects of the employment…

Domenico Zaino is a partner and co-practice group leader of the firm’s Business and Personal Services Group. He practices primarily in the area of labor and employment law and has extensive experience counseling, representing, and training employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. Nick’s clients range from small to large companies in various industries such as banking, medical, education, manufacturing, engineering, retail, construction, and non-profit. Working closely with C-level executives, in-house counsel, human resource professionals and business owners, Nick assists in managing risk by counseling on compliance and preventative strategies.

Read more about Nick ZainoEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Mark Williams Mark Williams

Mark F. Williams‘ practice includes all aspects of employee benefits, including both tax and ERISA issues that arise in connection with employee benefit plans for both large and small clients. Mark advises employers on the design of their qualified pension plans, including 401(k)…

Mark F. Williams‘ practice includes all aspects of employee benefits, including both tax and ERISA issues that arise in connection with employee benefit plans for both large and small clients. Mark advises employers on the design of their qualified pension plans, including 401(k) and 403(b) plans.  Mark also designs and drafts nonqualified deferred compensation plans, such as Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans, and assures compliance with IRC Section 409A, which governs nonqualified arrangements.  Mark has also advised employers on compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, Mark has experience in structuring golden parachute, change in control arrangements, and deferred compensation arrangements for non-profits.

Read more about Mark WilliamsEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Carmody @ Work
  • Organization:
    Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo