Supreme Court Punts On Obamacare And Birth Control: What You Need To Know

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it is sending back to the lower courts a high-profile case involving Obamacare, birth control and religious liberty, a possible sign that the justices were split on any decision and do not want to issue major rulings without a ninth vote.

The court implied that both sides in Zubik v. Burwell should be able to form a compromise on their own without the Supreme Court weighing in, essentially telling them to work it out themselves.

Here's what you need to know.

What is this case about?

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic nonprofit organization, sued the federal government over a part of Obamacare that requires employers to provide birth control for their female workers.

The group said that mandate goes against their religion.

There is a work-around in place, though: If employees wanted contraceptives, they could fill out a form that went straight to the insurance companies to get the birth control. But employers still had to sign off on that form, and they said even that act makes them complicit in something they see as sinful.

Wasn't there already a Supreme Court case about birth control?

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, as a for-profit business with deep religious beliefs, did not have to provide contraceptives to its female employees.

That case created the process where employees could still get birth control, but they had to go straight to the insurance company.

So what did the Supreme Court say?

After the court heard arguments in the case, they asked both sides to submit briefs about whether they could reach a compromise to provide contraceptive to employees without the organizations being directly involved.

"Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible," the Supreme Court's decision said.

The decision said that by sending it back to the court of appeals, both sides should have time to work out a solution on their own.

But, the court said, "the Government may not impose taxes or penalties" on employers for not providing the brith control themselves.

What does Antonin Scalia have to do with this?

Scalia's sudden death earlier this year left the court with eight justices who are essentially split four and four ideologically.

Had Scalia, a staunch and outspoken conservative, still been on the bench, it's possible the court could have ruled 5-4 in favor of religious organizations, even further decimating the Affordable Care Act — Obama's signature legislation that has taken several significant legal hits since it became law.

Some have also said that Monday's decision signals the court's intent not to vote on any sweeping rulings without a ninth justice to break the deadlock.

"Among other interpretations that may emerge, one that does seem likely is that this was a new demonstration of how the Court is having to adjust its actions to deal with the fact that it is one Justice short of its normal membership," Lyle Denniston wrote on SCOTUSblog.

Image via UpstateNYer, Wikimedia Commons