Courtroom interior_newWritten by Don Byrd

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for a full court (en banc) rehearing of a 3-judge panel’s ruling in the dispute over the contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act as it relates to religious organizations. The panel previously upheld the Obama Administration’s accommodation compromise for religious organizations over objections that the process violates their religious exercise rights under RFRA. The court determined that filing the opt-out form does not substantially burden an organization’s religious exercise. Yesterday’s denial of en banc review (pdf) leaves that ruling in place.

Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit on Tuesday declined to issue a preliminary injunction in Notre Dame’s RFRA challenge to the accommodation process.  The 7th Circuit previously denied an injunction request, but the U.S. Supreme Court in March of this year ordered the court to reconsider that ruling in light of its Hobby Lobby decision. Tuesday’s decision once again denies the injunction request.

Here is an excerpt from that opinion:

Although Notre Dame is the final arbiter of its religious beliefs, it is for the courts to determine whether the law actually forces Notre Dame to act in a way that would violate those beliefs. As far as we can determine from the very limited record, the only “conduit” is between the [insurance] companies and Notre Dame students and staff; the university has stepped aside. . . . There . . . is no suggestion that Notre Dame is involved at all in Aetna’s and Meritain’s contraception coverage.

The very word “accommodation” implies a balance of competing interests; and when we compare the burden on the government or third parties of having to establish some entirely new method of providing contraceptive coverage with the burden on Notre Dame of simply notifying the government that the ball is now in the government’s court, we cannot conclude that Notre Dame has yet established its right to the injunctive relief that it is seeking before trial.

Appeals from these rulings are expected.