<Li> Priests for Life v. Burwell (District of Columbia Circuit) </Li> <Li> Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell (District of Columbia Circuit) </Li> <P> Oral arguments were heard on March 23, 2016 . Issues discussed included how and where to draw the line between exempt churches and other religious non-profits and whether the government was "hijacking" the insurance plans created by the non-profits to achieve the government's goals . Because of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February, only eight justices heard the arguments, raising the possibility of an equally divided court, which would leave the appeals court rulings in force in their respective jurisdictions . </P> <P> On March 29 in a highly unusual move, the Court directed the parties "to file supplemental briefs that address whether and how contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners' employees through petitioners's insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees ." The Court suggested a possible scheme where petitioners would obtain insurance without contraceptive coverage and "petitioners' insurance company, aware that petitioners are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds, would separately notify petitioners' employees that the insurance company will provide cost - free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by petitioners and is not provided through petitioners's health plan ." Also, of particular interest to the court was the question raised in an amicus brief of conscientious objection suggesting that courts may not usurp the right of religious adherents to determine their own views regarding moral complicity . </P>

Little sisters of the poor us supreme court