In brief, from the court's decision ...
Last year, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), in which closely-held for-profit corporations challenged the Mandate under RFRA. The difference between Hobby Lobby and this case is significant and frames the issue here. In Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff for-profit corporations objected on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage and could choose only between (1) complying with the ACA by providing the coverage or (2) not complying and paying significant penalties. Id. at 2759-60. In the cases before us, the plaintiff religious non- profit organizations can avail themselves of an accommodation that allows them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without penalty. Plaintiffs contend the process to opt out substantially burdens their religious exercise.In other words, unlike in Hobby Lobby, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the general obligation under the ACA to provide contraceptive coverage. They instead challenge the process they must follow to get out of complying with that obligation.
Thats how I read it.
The argument here is that there IS an opt out for Little Sisters. The government says the opt out is reasonable and accompdates Little Sisters religious beliefs.
But because of some nuance with Little Sister’s insurance coverage, the opt out process is more complicated than just filling out the form that tells HHS to go pound sand. So Little Sisters is claiming the process, which is somewhat unique to them, imposes a substantial burden.
IN OTHER WORDS, we know the Hobby Lobby decision was very unpopular with the only people who still matter in this country, so we’re going to whittle it down for a while, and then the Supreme Court will make it go away, just like they did that embarrassing Bowers v. Hardwick decision years ago.