988 F. Supp. 2d 935 - Schools v. Sebelius’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
1 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. § 1185d · 42 U.S.C. § 18011 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 300G
Relies on Elrod v. Burns · Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Sherbert v. Verner · University of Texas v. Camenisch
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Eligible organizations. An eligible organization is an organization that satisfies all of the following requirements: (1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 147.130(a)(l)(iv) on account of religious objections. (2) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity. (3) The organization holds itself out as a religious organization. (4) The organization self-certifies, in a form and manner specified by the Secretary, that it satisfies the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, and makes such self-certification available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (c) of this section applies. The self-certification must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“although the “accommodation” legally enables [p]laintiffs to avoid directly paying for the portion of the health plan that provides contraceptive products, services, and counseling, the “accommodation” requires them to shift the responsibility of purchasing insurance and providing contraceptive products, services, and counseling, onto a secular source. The [c]ourt concludes that [p]laintiffs have a sincerely-held belief that “shifting responsibility” does not absolve or exonerate them from the moral turpitude created by the “accom modation”; to the contrary, it still substantially burdens their sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[b]y stating the public interests so generally, the government guarantees that the mandate will flunk the test. [The compelling interest test] requires a substantial congruity—a close “fit”—between the governmental interest and the means chosen to further that interest. Stating the governmental interests at such a high level of generality makes it impossible to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering them. There are many ways to promote public health and gender equality, almost all of them less burdensome on religious liberty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.