Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

===Wheaton College order===
On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to the approach it suggested as a less restrictive alternative in ''Hobby Lobby,'' where the plaintiffs would send a form ([[EBSA Form 700]])<ref name=form700>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.doc|title=EBSA Form 700: Certification for Safe Harbor Exemption from Contraceptive Coverage Mandate|access-date=2014-07-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722040927/http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.doc|archive-date=2014-07-22|url-status=dead}}</ref> to its insurance issuer, which would pay for the contraception. In an unsigned emergency injunction for [[Wheaton College (Illinois)|Wheaton College]] in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying its insurance issuer, Wheaton can notify the government. Once notified, the government should notify the issuer. Wheaton believed that by transferring the obligation to cover contraceptives to its insurance issuer, it was triggering that obligation. The emergency injunction does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Wheaton's religious objection. The court said "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf Order in Pending Case, Wheaton College v. Bruwell, On Application for Injunction] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625143448/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf |date=2017-06-25 }}, July 3, 2014</ref>

In a 15-page dissent joined by the other two women on the court, Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] criticized the majority's reasoning: "Wheaton's application comes nowhere near the high bar necessary to warrant an emergency injunction from this court&nbsp;... The court's actions in this case create unnecessary costs and layers of bureaucracy, and they ignore a simple truth: The government must be allowed to handle the basic tasks of public administration in a manner that comports with common sense."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|title=Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=The New York Times|date=Jul 3, 2014|archive-date=July 4, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140704020348/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor granted a similar temporary injunction to the [[Little Sisters of the Poor]] at the end of 2013, just before the mandate was to go into effect.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bazelon|first1=Emily|title=Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/little_sisters_of_the_poor_case_supreme_court_grants_a_temporary_reprieve.single.html|access-date=Jul 6, 2014|work=Slate|date=Jan 24, 2014|archive-date=July 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714142713/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/little_sisters_of_the_poor_case_supreme_court_grants_a_temporary_reprieve.single.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012414zr_6jgm.pdf|title=Supreme Court order|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170318154816/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012414zr_6jgm.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf|title=order from Sotomayor|access-date=2014-07-06|archive-date=2014-02-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140211034417/http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In dueling commentaries between regular [[SCOTUSblog]] contributor [[Marty Lederman]] and co-founder [[Tom Goldstein]], Lederman argued that only Form 700 can require an insurance provider to pay for contraception coverage. Goldstein argued that an existing regulation allows the government to specify an alternative to Form 700. He pointed out that "the Court didn't accept Wheaton's most aggressive argument" that it cannot be required to do anything. He said that Justice Kennedy's concurrence is controlling and makes clear that the RFRA is not violated by requiring Wheaton to notify the government.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goldstein|first1=Tom|title=Commentary: Why I don't think the Court's Wheaton College decision rests on any misunderstanding of the law|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|access-date=Jul 15, 2014|work=SCOTUSblog|date=Jul 4, 2014 <!-- 11:53 AM -->|archive-date=July 16, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716125720/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lederman|first1=Marty|title=Commentary: Is the Court's attempt at a compromise order in Wheaton College based upon a misunderstanding of the law?|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-is-the-courts-attempt-at-a-compromise-order-in-wheaton-college-based-upon-a-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|access-date=Jul 15, 2014|work=SCOTUSblog|date=Jul 4, 2014 <!-- 11:52 AM -->|archive-date=July 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711151210/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-is-the-courts-attempt-at-a-compromise-order-in-wheaton-college-based-upon-a-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|url-status=live}}</ref>

A revised version of EBSA Form 700, effective August 2014, says "[a]s an alternative to using this form, an eligible organization may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the eligible organization has a religious objection to providing coverage for all or a subset of contraceptive services&nbsp;...".<ref name=form700/>