Supreme Court Amicus Brief Filed in Support of the Contraception Regulations in the Affordable Care Act

Paul, Weiss filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) and sixty-eight other organizations in the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the contraception regulations in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  

The Supreme Court proceeding is a consolidation of two cases involving challenges to the contraception regulations in the ACA, which provide that employers with over 50 employees must include in their group health insurance plans coverage for "[a]ll [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." The challenges were brought by owners of for-profit, secular businesses, asserting that the contraception regulations constitute a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides that the government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless that burden furthers a compelling governmental interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The Third Circuit, in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, affirmed the District Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to the contraception regulations, finding that a for-profit, secular corporation cannot exercise religion, and therefore cannot assert a claim under RFRA. The Tenth Circuit, in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, reversed the District Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the contraception regulations substantially burdened Hobby Lobby's religious exercise, and that the Government failed to demonstrate that the contraception regulations further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive means possible. 

NWLC's Supreme Court amicus brief focuses on the compelling interest portion of the RFRA test. The brief argues that the contraception regulations serve two compelling governmental interests: safeguarding the public health by decreasing the number of unintended pregnancies and their resulting negative health consequences for women and children; and promoting women's equality, both in the provision of health care and in society more generally. The brief further argues that the Government's interest in enforcing the contraception regulations is particularly strong here, where providing the exemption the companies seek would result in significant harm to the rights of the female employees of those companies. Since January 2013, Paul, Weiss has filed similar briefs in 11 cases in Courts of Appeals across the country, including in the Third Circuit and Tenth Circuit cases currently before the Supreme Court.

The Paul, Weiss team includes litigation partner Charles Davidow and associates Ilana Waxman, Andree Goldsmith, Kim Allen and Karin Dryhurst.