Grace Schools v. Burwell’s Empirical Analysis
801 F.3d 788 · 2015
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 4980D (§ 402 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) · 26 U.S.C. § 4980H · 26 U.S.C. § 6033 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 18011 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C
Relies on Wisconsin v. Yoder · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah · Cutter et al. v. Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction · Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] that it is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and [4] that issuing an injunction is in the public interest.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This is not like the case of a- conscientious, objector who objects and the government finds a replacement. Under the regulations, the government does not find the replacement, the nonprofit does. The designation does not take place unless the nonprofit either delivers the self-certification form to its insurer or TP A, or uses the alternative notice to inform the government who its insurer or TPA is and which health plan is at issue. By insisting that the- nonprofit deliver the form or supply the plan information for the government's use, the government uses the objecting nonprofit to do its dirty-work. • ■ The government has not provided an exit — it offers a revolving door with only one opening. This is not the case of a conscientious objector walking into the draft board, voicing his objection, being excused, and walking out. For the analogy to fit the HHS accommodation, the draft board must decide that every objector will be replaced by the objector’s friend, and the objector’s objection is only effective if the objector delivers written notice of his objection' to his friend or tells the draft board who his friend is and where the board can find him. Then, the objector must send his friend money so that his friend will remain his friend for the purpose of being his replacement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.