MELVIN RAY, PETITIONER,

v.

ALABAMA.

Citator

Cited By

• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014)
  …d to opt out of the contraceptive mandate by providing written notification of their objections to the Secretary of HHS, rather than to their insurance issuers or third-party administrators. See Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1022, 187 L.Ed.2d 867 (2014). While the Government predicts that this number will decline over time, the total number of Americans working for employers to whom the contraceptive mandate does not apply is still substantial, and there is no legal requir…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Wheaton Coll. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (U.S. 2014)
  …of the representations required on the front of the form. No statement to which Wheaton must assent in any way reflects agreement with or endorsement of the notice. This case is crucially unlike Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1022, 187 L.Ed.2d 867 (2014). There, the Court issued a comparable order "based on all the circumstances of the case"-in particular, the fact that the applicants' third-party administrator was a "church plan" that had no legal obligation or intention t…
• Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs., U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 756 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2014)
  …rated — to the third-party administrator. See Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. at 2763-64 n. 9 (acknowledging that the Supreme Court recently permitted a nonprofit to opt out of the mandate in this manner in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, 571 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1022, 187 L.Ed.2d 867 (2014)). It is substantially likely that the United States fails to establish that the accommodation provision, as currently structured, is the least restrictive means to address any compelling governmental interest, the “most dem…

  ← 1 / 2 →