Supreme Court Term Opens With Action On Cert. Petitions and More

The U.S. Supreme Court opened its October 2016 Term on Monday, with the first oral arguments this morning. Here is a round-up of a number of developments leading up to, and occurring on, opening day.

Last Thursday, in advance of opening day, the Court granted review in eight cases (Order List), one of which was McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 (cert. granted limited to one question, 9/29/2016). (SCOTUSblog case page).  While the case involves EEOC charges of gender and age discrimination, the procedural issue which the court will decide may affect EEOC religious discrimination cases as well.  At issue is whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, or whether an appellate court should instead give more deference to the district court's decision. SHRM reports on the case.

As reported by the National Law Journal, on Sunday, the annual Red Mass was held (photos) at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C.  It was attended by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Breyer.  The late Justice Scalia's son gave a reading from the Bible at the ceremony.

On Monday, the Court issued its usual lengthy opening-day list of certiorari denials. This year's list of cases covered 64 pages of the 71-page Oct. 3 Order List.  Among the cases in which review was denied was Klingenschmitt v. United States, (Docket No. 15-1445). In a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (see prior posting) which was summarily affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court rejected claims by a Navy Chaplain that he was that he was wrongfully discharged from the Navy. The refusal to recertify Klingenschmitt as a chaplain culminated a long-running battle between him and the military over military regulations requiring chaplains to deliver inclusive prayers at military event.

Supreme Court Calendar Adjusted This Year For Jewish High Holidays

National Law Journal reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has adjusted its argument calendar to accommodate the Jewish High Holidays which this year come in early October.  The first day of Rosh Hashana falls on Oct. 3-- the first Monday in October.  While 28 USC Sec. 2 requires the Supreme Court to begin its term on the first Monday in October, this year the Court will only hold a brief session that day for announcements and swearing in new members of the Supreme Court bar. The Court also will not sit at all on Yom Kippur, October 12.  Currently 3 Justices are Jewish-- Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.  Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland is also Jewish.

Cert Petition Filed In "Sister Wives" Challenge To Polygamy Law

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in Brown v. Buhman.  In the case, U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed on mootness grounds the constitutional challenge to Utah's bigamy law that had been filed by the polygamous family from the television show "Sister Wives." (See prior posting). A federal district court had held most of Utah's plural marriage ban unconstitutional. (See prior posting.) Jonathan Turley who represents petitioners discusses the filing on his blog.

Amici Tell SCOTUS of Importance of ERISA Church Plan Cases

On Aug. 12 and 15 several amicus briefs were filed by religious advocacy groups with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting petitions for certiorari in two cases involving the question of whether ERISA's "church plan" exemption applies to retirement plans of religiously-affiliated healthcare organizations where the plans were not initially established by a church. If the exemption does not apply, the plans will be underfunded by some $3.5 billion.  The cases are Saint Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan (see prior posting) and Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (see prior posting).  BNA Daily Report for Executives (Aug. 18) [subscription required] describes arguments put forward by amici:

Several of the briefs emphasize the huge universe of workers that could be affected by a Supreme Court decision on this topic. According to the Thomas More Society's brief, this issue affects the retirement benefits of “millions of employees across the country who work for nonprofit religious organizations,” including the 750,000 people who work for Catholic hospitals alone.

Further, the groups argue that employees at other organizations, including schools, nursing homes and day care centers, could be affected by a high court ruling. That is because many of these organizations rely on the same statutory exemption in administering their pension plans.

First Amendment rights are a recurring theme in several briefs, which argue that the appellate court decisions against hospital pension plans infringe on religious liberty.... 

Taking a different approach, the Becket Fund also argues that forcing faith-connected hospitals to comply with federal pension rules could threaten their ability to “invest retirement funds morally” and use pension assets to “promote social justice” and “avoid supporting evils.”

In an unexpected twist, the Church Alliance predicts that denying religious exemptions to hospital pension plans could result in “cascading securities law violations” by forcing the plans into the purview of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Links to all the amicus briefs are available from the SCOTUSblog case pages (case page for Advocate Health Care; case page for Saint Peter’s Healthcare).

Supreme Court Temporarily Stays 4th Circuit's Ruling On Title IX and Transgender Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday issued an order temporarily staying the 4th Circuit's mandate to a Virginia federal district court to reconsider its denial of a preliminary injunction in a transgender rights case.  In Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., (Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2016), the Court by a vote of 5-3 stayed the 4th Circuit's mandate pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari.  In the case, the 4th Circuit held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex. (See prior posting.)  Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented from the grant of a stay.  Justice Breyer said he concurred with the stay "as a courtesy" while the Supreme Court is in recess. Los Angeles Times reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Cert. Petition Filed In Bakery's Refusal To Provide Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cake Shop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (cert filed 7/22/2016). In the case, a Colorado Court of Appeals held that a bakery owner's free exercise and free speech rights were not infringed when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that the refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violates Colorado's public accommodation law.  The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. (See prior posting.) ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Abortion Cases

As reported by the New York Times, yesterday in the wake of its opinion in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt striking down Texas' restrictions on abortion clinics (see prior posting), the Court denied review in cases from Mississippi and Wisconsin in which Courts of Appeal had similarly struck down restrictive state abortion laws.  The Court in its June 28 Order List denied certiorari in Currier v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, (Docket No. 14-997) (SCOTUSblog case page) and Schimel v. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, (Docket No. 15-1200) (SCOTUSblog case page).

Supreme Court Invalidates Texas Abortion Access Law

In a 5-3 decision today in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, (Sup. Ct., June 27, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions in Texas' controversial statute regulating access to abortions.  The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, held that both the requirement for a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges in a near-by hospital and for abortion clinics to meet standards that apply to ambulatory surgical centers place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion and place an undue, unconstitutional burden on abortion access. Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Breyer's opinion. Justice Ginsburg also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined.

4th Circuit Puts Transgender Case On Fast Track to Supreme Court

As previously reported, in April, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Virginia school board's policy barring a transgender boy (who had not undergone sex-reassignment surgery) from using the boy's rest rooms at his school violates Title IX's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex.  The school board filed a motion for a rehearing en banc, but this week in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, (4th Cir., May 31, 2016), the court issued an order denying the rehearing petition.  However Judge Niemeyer, who had dissented in the April decision, filed a dissent from the denial of a rehearing, but said:

While I could call for a poll of the court in an effort to require counsel to reargue their positions before an en banc court, the momentous nature of the issue deserves an open road to the Supreme Court to seek the Court’s controlling construction of Title IX for national application. And the facts of this case, in particular, are especially “clean,” such as to enable the Court to address the issue without the distraction of subservient issues.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports on developments.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Cases of Interest

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in two cases of interest (Order List):

Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Schuchman, (Docket No. 15-1005, cert. denied 5/23/2016). In the case, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the statute of limitations had run in a dispute between Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan and a local Chabad organization over ownership of a Chabad center. (See prior posting.)

Sunrise Children's Services v. Glisson, (Docket No. 15-1021, cert. denied 5/23/2016).  In the case decided below under the name Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Services, Inc., the 6th Circuit essentially reopened a long-running Establishment Clause dispute over Kentucky state funding  of treatment for abused and neglected children in facilities operated by Sunrise Children's Services, a Baptist organization. (See prior posting.) The cert. petition (full text) focuses on standing questions.

Supreme Court Sends 2 More Contraceptive Mandate Cases Back To Circuit Courts

The U.S. Supreme Court today sent back to Courts of Appeal two more of the cases involving challenges by religious non-profits to the contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation. (5/23/16 Order List).  The cases today in which the Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgement below and remanded in light of Zubik v. Burwell are Catholic Health Care System v. Burwell, (Docket No. 15-1100) remanded to the 2nd Circuit (see prior posting), and Michigan Catholic Conference v. Burwell,  (Docket No. 15-1131) remanded to the 6th Circuit (see prior posting).

Supreme Court Says Attorneys' Fees In Title VII Actions Available In Procedural Wins

Yesterday, in a case that has implications for religious discrimination cases brought by the EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that successful defendants in employment discrimination cases can recover attorneys' fees when they win on procedural grounds, as well as when they succeed on the merits.  In CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, (Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), the court held that "a defendant need not obtain a favorable judgment on the merits in order to be a 'prevailing party.'" SCOTUSblog has more on the decision.

Supreme Court "Punts" On Contraceptive Mandate Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today took the unusual step of sending the controversial dispute over the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate compromise for religious non-profits back to the relevant Courts of Appeals without giving those courts any guidance on the merits.  In a per curiam opinion in Zubik v. Burwell  (Sup. Ct., May 16, 2016), the Court said in part:

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. Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.” ....

The Court expresses no view on the merits of the cases. In particular, the Court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.  Nothing in this opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.” ... Through this litigation, petitioners have made the Government aware of their view that they meet “the requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds.” ...  Because the Government may rely on this notice, the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on petitioners for failure to provide the relevant notice....

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, filed a concurring opinion emphasizing that the Court has decided nothing about the merits of the case, warning that in the past some court had incorrectly read similar disclaimers by the Court as signaling something about the merits.

In separate orders, the Court applied its decision to six additional cases posing the same legal issue in which certiorari petitions were pending.  The Court's actions no doubt reflect a 4-4 split on the merits.  In its per curiam opinion today, the Court-- eternally hopeful--added:

We anticipate that the Courts of Appeals will allow the parties sufficient time to resolve any outstanding issues between them.

New York Times reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Two Religious Rights Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Wayne County v. Bible Believers, (Docket No. 15-1090, cert. denied 5/16/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the right of Bible Believers, a Christian group, to engage in provocative and offensive proselytizing of Muslims at the annual Dearborn, Michigan Arab International Festival. (See prior posting.)

The Supreme Court also denied certiorari in Rogers v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, (Docket No. 15-1105, cert. denied 5/16/2016) (Order List).  In the case, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts upheld an injunction against former parishioners of Frances X. Cabrini Church in Scituate who have held a 24-hour vigil in the church for over ten years in order to protest plans to close it. (See prior posting.)

Cert. Denied In Challenge To Alabama Prisoner Grooming Restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Knight v. Thompson, (Docket No. 15-999, cert. denied 5/2/2016). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Alabama prison system's grooming requirement that prohibited Native American inmates from wearing long hair, even for religious reasons. (See prior posting.) AP reports on the denial of certiorari.

Amicus Briefs In Support of Petitioner In Trinity Lutheran Case Are Now Available

Next term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley challenging Missouri's exclusion under its "no aid" clause of churches from its secular grant program for playground improvements. (See prior posting.) The deadline for amicus briefs in support of petitioner has now passed, and 25 briefs in support of Trinity Lutheran Church have been filed, along with one amicus brief in support of neither side. Links to all of the amicus briefs are available from the SCOTUSblog case page for the case.  Respondent's brief is not due until June 28, with amicus briefs supporting respondent due a week after that.

Parties File Supplemental Reply Briefs With Supreme Court In Zubik Case

Yesterday the petitioners and respondents both filed Supplemental Reply Briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in Zubik v. Burwell, the case challenging the government's compromise for religious non-profits that object to including contraceptive coverage in their employee health plans.  The briefs make it clear that there is not agreement between the parties on an alternative compromise. The petitioner's brief (full text) says in part:

If petitioners were truly exempt from the mandate, and those companies were to offer their employees the kind of truly separate coverage that petitioners have described—i.e., “a separate policy, with a separate enrollment process, a separate insurance card, and a separate payment source, and offered to individuals through a separate communication”—then petitioners would no longer have a RFRA objection.

The government's brief (full text) counters:

[P]etitioners assert that it is not enough that insurers provide that coverage entirely outside petitioners’ health plans and without their involvement, as the accommodation already requires. Petitioners also insist that the coverage must consist of contraceptive-only insurance policies, not direct payments for contraceptives. And they add that women must take affirmative steps to enroll, and cannot be covered automatically.

RFRA does not give petitioners the right to insist upon those new conditions. The statute simply does not entitle them to dictate the terms of insurers’ separate dealings with women.

Supreme Court In Unusual Order Floats Alternative Compromise In Contraceptive Mandate Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an unusual Order (full text) in Zubik v. Burwell and the six other cases consolidated with it, less than a week after the Court heard oral arguments in the case.  In what is apparently an attempt to avoid a 4-4 split in the case, the Court has essentially drafted its own version of a compromise on provision of contraceptive coverage in health insurance policies for employees of religious non-profits, and is asking the parties whether they will buy into it. The Order reads in part:

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs that 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.  Petitioners with insured plans are currently required to submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government (naming petitioners’ insurance company), stating that petitioners object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners. 

For example, the parties should consider a situation in which petitioners would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. Petitioners would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal Government, or to their employees. At the same time, petitioners’ 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.

The parties may address other proposals along similar lines, avoiding repetition of discussion in prior briefing.....

Initial reactions from the non-profits suggest that they may be willing to accept this version of the compromise. A press release from the Becket Fund, counsel for Little Sisters of The Poor, petitioners in one of the cases, describes the Court's Order as an "excellent development."

Transcript of Arguments In Zubik Case Is Now Available

The full transcript of today's oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, the contraceptive coverage mandate accommodation case, is now available. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog has an interesting analysis of the arguments.

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments Today In Contraceptive Coverage Mandate Accommodation Challenge

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell and six other cases consolidated for argument with it. (Hearing List.)  The cases all involve challenges to the Obama Administration's Affordable Care Act accommodation for religious non-profits.  Religious non-profits that object to including coverage for contraceptive services in their employee health plans may opt out in favor of coverage that is furnished instead directly by the organization's insurer or third-party administrator. Although there is a split among circuits on the issue, all of the cases being argued today involve appeals court decisions upholding the mandate.  The cases raise fundamental issues of interpretation and application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Court has allotted 90 minutes for oral argument of the consolidated cases. Argument time for the religious non-profits will be divided between former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement and Jones Day partner Noel J. Francisco. Arguing for the government will be U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.  The SCOTUSblog case page furnishes links to the dozens of briefs from parties and amici that have been filed, as well as links to extensive commentary on the cases. A transcript of the oral arguments should be available later in the day from the Supreme Court's website.

While the arguments are taking place, outside the Supreme Court building a rally is planned by Little Sisters of the Poor, the non-profit that has been the face of the challengers on social media and in an op-ed last week in the New York Times. Planners say that hundreds of religious women, college students, and clergy will participate.  An op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post by Prof. Douglas Laycock counters the arguments by Little Sisters.

With the recent death of Justice Scalia, it is possible that the Court could split 4-4 in the case, which would result in affirmance of the Circuit Court decisions.  The first such 4-4 affirmance was published today in a case involving interpretation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.