The lawyers representing the government in Zubik v. Burwell told the U.S. Supreme Court that any compromise to resolve the case is only acceptable if it will end the legal controversy and ensure women can access contraceptive coverage in another way, according to The Washington Post.
Otherwise, the lawyers said, litigation would continue for years in the states and many women would not be able to access contraceptive health coverage, according to the report.
In an unusual move, on March 29 the Supreme Court asked lawyers on both sides to provide supplemental briefs exploring a possible compromise to resolve the case — in which religious nonprofit organizations claim the contraceptive coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act violates their religious freedom. The initial briefs were due Tuesday, and response briefs are due April 20.
Here are three things to know about the briefs filed by both sides.
1. Lawyers supporting the plaintiffs said they would compromise if the religious nonprofits truly had no hand in the process of providing female employees birth control coverage. This includes signing documents to indicate to the government they object to the contraceptive mandate, as is currently required, according to The Washington Post. They said they were in support of examples given by the Supreme Court, according to the report.
2. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who represents the government in the case, wrote in his brief to the court that "a requirement that an employer state in writing its religious objection and eligibility for an exemption is a minimally intrusive process, and petitioners have never suggested an alternative arrangement like the one posited in the court's order," according to The Washington Post.
3. The eight-justice court appeared to be split at the March 23 hearing of the case. In the event of a deadlock without a compromise, the lower court rulings will stand. This means nothing will change except for in the following states: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas. In those states, regional appeals courts ruled that religiously-affiliated nonprofits are not required to provide women contraceptive coverage because the religious accommodation under the ACA does not go far enough and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, according to the report.
More articles on legal and regulatory issues:
HCA, Florida department of revenue end years-long tax dispute: 5 things to know
Gun control debate slows mental health reform
MemorialCare sues over hospital closure, asks for $42.5M in damages