Whether RFRA requires the government to exempt religious objectors from providing health plans that include contraceptive coverage

QUESTION PRESENTED Since 2011, the federal courts have repeatedly considered whether forcing religious objectors to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That controversy has been addressed by more than 150 judges, in scores of lawsuits, across ten different circuits, and involving hundreds of religious organizations. Over and over again, those suits have come to this Court, either for emergency relief or merits determination. Yet despite the repeated need for this Court’s intervention, it has never resolved the merits of the RFRA dispute. Most recently, an eight-Justice Court in Zubik v. Burwell did not reach the RFRA question and instead remanded for the parties to reach a resolution. The federal government then conceded the RFRA violation and issued new rules exempting religious objectors. But without resolution of the RFRA question from this Court, the litigation has continued unabated. Now States are suing the federal government because they disagree with its RFRA analysis and believe the religious exemption rules are impermissible. This latest set of cases thus arrives in a new posture—here, a dispute over whether the agencies had “good cause” to issue interim final rules to correct the RFRA violation— but presents the same unresolved issue that was at the heart of Zubik and several prior emergency applications: Whether RFRA requires the government to exempt religious objectors from providing health plans that include contraceptive coverage.