May 16, 2016
MARSHALL NEWS MESSENGER (5/17/16) - East Texas Baptist University could be one step closer to reaching a solution in its contraceptives case after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide the case - instead sending the case back down to the lower federal court for resolution.
The eight justices ruled unanimously, saying they would not decide the case based on the merits of the case and instead, send it to the lower courts for both the government and the university, who is joined by other religious institutions, to work out a compromise.
In the meantime the court ruled that ETBU and the other private religious institutions in the suit will not incur government fines for failing to provide the contraceptive coverage in its employee health insurance plan.
"The court expresses no view on the merits of the cases," the justices wrote in the opinion on Monday.
In an unusual move, the justices asked both parties to submit additional supplemental briefs in April, asking both parties to describe what each could accept as a resolution. Based on those briefs, the high court said in its opinion that it feels a compromise is "feasible."
It was unclear Monday when the lower federal court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, will hear the case again.
"Typically, the case would be sent back within 25 days, beginning today, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals," Eric Rassbach, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's Deputy General Counsel said, on Monday.
The group is representing ETBU, Houston Baptist University, Pennsylvania-based Westminster Theological Seminary and The Little Sisters of the Poor in the case.
Rassbach said the federal court's previous ruling has been thrown out and the case will be heard again.
"ETBU is very pleased that the Supreme Court threw out the Fifth Circuit ruling against us and also ordered that we cannot be fined for failing to comply with the government's scheme," ETBU President Blair Blackburn said Monday. "The court is saying that there should be a solution that works for everyone - the government can achieve its objectives, and we can continue following God's truths and our consciences, while providing excellent Christ-centered education."
A district court previously ruled in the university's favor but when appealed later to the federal court, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there was no "substantial" burden on the university to provide the controversial contraceptive coverage.
The university argued that offering the insurance coverage that includes drugs such as "the morning after pill" and Plan B, which prevents or stops early pregnancy, violates their religious liberty.
The Marshall university appealed to the land's highest court in February after the federal court's decision required the university to offer the contraceptive coverage according to the HHS Mandate or face federal fines.
"We are very encouraged by the court's decision, which is an important win for the Little Sisters. The Court has recognized that the government changed its position," Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead Becket attorney for the Little Sisters of the Poor said.
Rassbach said the government switched up its argument when presenting to the high court and that worked in the university's favor.
"The government's lower court argument was that there was no way to deliver these services (contraceptives) except for the path laid out in the HHS mandate," Rassbach said.
"But, before the supreme court, the government admitted that this was impossible without the religious institutions' participation, and that the government did have other ways to deliver the services without forcing the religious institutions to participate."
Rassbach said the path is now paved for the university to truly be removed from the process of offering the contraceptives. He also said there is no rush for the federal court to hear the case again.
"ETBU already has two court orders protecting it from fines - the district court's order and the Supreme Court's order," Rassbach said Monday. "There is no big rush and the Supreme Court wants both sides to take the time to reach a solution."
(Used by permission www.marshallnewsmessenger.com. Story by MNM reporter Bridget Ortigo)