Title: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania | Constitutional Accountability Center
Headings: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania
Case Summary
Case Timeline
CAC files amicus curiae brief
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments
The Supreme Court issues its decision
Get updates on our work
Newsletter
Donate

Content: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania | Constitutional Accountability Center
Issues
Access to Justice
Civil and Human Rights
Corporate Accountability
Criminal Justice
Environmental Protection
Federal Courts and Nominations
Health Care
Immigration and Citizenship
Rule of Law
Voting Rights and Democracy
Litigation
Think Tank
News
About
About CAC
Staff
Board
Careers
Contact
Issues
Access to Justice
Civil and Human Rights
Corporate Accountability
Criminal Justice
Environmental Protection
Federal Courts and Nominations
Health Care
Immigration and Citizenship
Rule of Law
Voting Rights and Democracy
Litigation
Think Tank
News
About
About CAC
Staff
Board
Careers
Contact
Constitutional Progress
Arc of Constitutional Progress
America’s Second Founding
The United States Constitution
Experts
Blog
Events
Donate
Issues
Access to Justice
Civil and Human Rights
Corporate Accountability
Criminal Justice
Environmental Protection
Federal Courts and Nominations
Health Care
Immigration and Citizenship
Rule of Law
Voting Rights and Democracy
Litigation
Think Tank
News
About
About CAC
Staff
Board
Careers
Contact
Constitutional Progress
Arc of Constitutional Progress
America’s Second Founding
The United States Constitution
Experts
Blog
Events
Donate
Civil and Human Rights
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania; Donald J. Trump v. Pennsylvania
In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court held that the Trump Administration had the legal authority to promulgate rules that provide an unconditional religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement to not-for-profit, educational, and for-profit employers. Case Summary
In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court struck a balance, holding that the religious accommodation contained in the Affordable Care Act’s regulations provided the key to reconciling the rights of employers, employees, and the government. By extending the accommodation for religious non-profit employers to closely-held for-profit companies, the ruling accommodated objecting employers, while still ensuring that their employees received critically important insurance. In 2016, in Zubik v. Burwell, the Court refused to strike down the accommodation, giving the parties another opportunity to find a solution that respected the rights of employer and employee alike. In 2017, the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury issued interim final rules that made the accommodation optional and provided an unconditional exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement for not-for-profit, educational, and for-profit employers whose owners possessed sincere religious or moral objections to contraception. In defense of the exemption, Little Sisters and the Trump Administration argue that the religious accommodation violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that an unconditional exemption is necessary to comply with RFRA. Constitutional Accountability Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the consolidated cases on behalf of military historians which argues that accommodations of the sort contained in the Affordable Care Act’s regulations—which allow religious objectors to opt out while third parties fulfill their obligations—represent a longstanding method of ensuring religious liberty while also protecting the rights of third parties and furthering important governmental purposes. Conscientious objector provisions figured prominently in debates over the Bill of Rights, were present in numerous Revolutionary-era state constitutions, and have existed in federal draft laws since the Civil War.