In the case of Wheaton College v. Burwell, No. 13A1284, Wheaton College, an evangelical Protestant liberal arts college in Illinois, has objected to the requirements to file Form 700 on the grounds that doing so violates their religious beliefs. According to Wheaton, and other religious nonprofits, the mere signing of a form noting their religious objection to contraception coverage triggered third parties to provide the contraception, which triggered women to have access to morning-after pills and IUDs, which in their view were akin to abortions, and thus violated their religious consciences.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court agreed, issuing a temporary injunction against the enforcement of this provision of the ACA against Wheaton. What is interesting about this case is that the very work around that the majority in Hobby Lobby said was available as a less restrictive alternative, has now itself been deemed too restrictive.  The Court in Hobby Lobby stressed that its decision was narrow, applying only to closely-held, family owned, for-profits businesses and because there was a less restrictive alternative, the contraception mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, the very alternative mentioned in that case has now also been deemed too restrictive under RFRA.

The Court makes clear in its Wheaton College order that it is not a final decision on the merits, merely a ruling on an emergency injunction.  However, the Court has instructed lower courts to revisit their decisions in light of the Hobby Lobby decision, and many of those cases address issues similar to those raised by Wheaton College. Is the Court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby truly as narrow as it claims and what will come of the ACA down the road? This will be an interesting case to follow as the Court will likely reach a decision on the merits next term.

Read the Order here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf