ObamaCare contraceptive battle sent back to lower courts by Supreme Court

The appeal filed by religious non-profit groups against the contraception directive by the Human Services Department was heard by the Supreme Court in March, but the highest court in the United States decided to send the case back to the lower courts.

"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," reads the per curiam opinion.

The petitioners are mainly groups that provide their employees with health insurance. The issue is with the requirement to cover certain contraceptives, which the religious groups find to be against their faith. There is an option to submit a form to either the federal government or the insurer that states their objection to contraceptive coverage on the basis of religion, but the complainants find that submitting this form "substantially burdens the exercise of their religion, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."

"Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing 'whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners' employees, through petitioners' insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners," the opinion says. "Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible."

In essence, according to The Washington Times, the court is saying that the two parties can work out a compromise wherein women can have contraceptive coverage without having to require their employers -- religious institutions where they work -- to violate their religious beliefs.

The move by the court is seen as a victory by religious liberty advocates although the opinion emphasizes that the court is by no means endorsing either side of the case. It is, on the other hand, deemed as a defeat by the allies of President Barack Obama, and it is surmised that if there were nine judges instead of eight, the decision might have been different.

In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that the lower courts are given the opportunity to reconsider the sides of both parties "in light of petitioners' new articulation of their religious objection and the Government's clarification about what the existing regulations accomplish, how they might be amended, and what such an amendment would sacrifice."