Wheaton College v. Azar

Wheaton College is a small evangelical liberal arts school in Wheaton Illinois. Students and faculty are strongly committed to their faith and church. Being a predominantly religious institution, they make decisions for the university with their religious beliefs and practices in the forefront of their mind. A conflict developed with Wheaton College in 2010 where the federal government issued a mandate, regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that required the college to include services at the school such as emergency contraception as part of its insurance plans. Given Wheaton’s religious manner, this was deeply against their beliefs, and therefore attempted to reject this mandate through a religious exemption. The government refused to consider the college a religious exemption, which led Wheaton College to sue the government to protect its right to operate as they wished without the risk of government fines.
        Wheaton College officially filed a lawsuit in July of 2012 suggesting that the mandate violated their First Amendment rights. The government promised religious accommodation for the time being even though they refused to consider the college as a religious employer. With this accommodation, the federal government rewrote their one year “safe-harbor” to include Wheaton so that they had one more year to comply with this mandate until the fines would begin rolling in. After a granted motion for expedited appeal, in September of 2012 the court ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional and was to be fixed by the HHS. Although the government now allowed this accommodation, the college was looking at large government fines. Wheaton was still being forced to choose between their religious beliefs and avoiding millions of dollars worth of fines. May of 2016 allowed the tables to turn when the court decided to look at this case similar to the way they did Zubik v. Burwell. Finally on February 22, 2018, Wheaton’s five-year legal battle finally came to an end when the district court ruled in Wheaton College’s favor, protecting the school from any current or future application of the mandate.

It was important that the case was viewed in the eyes of Zubik v. Burwell, a similar case that was going on at the time. In 2010 the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by congress which required group health plans and insurance. When considering contraceptive methods a regulation was put into place that included an exemption from contraceptive coverage for the group health plan of a religious employer. The exemption states that they are not covered through a cost-sharing mechanism. The Supreme Court decided that insurance companies could provide contraceptive coverage to employees of organizations that object to such coverage on religious grounds without the organizations needing to provide notification, therefore they vacated the case for further consideration by the lower courts as this gave opportunity to determine how to proceed in a manner that grants employees full contraceptive coverage while also respecting the organizations’ religious exercise. Considering that outcome, the case with Wheaton College was looked at similarly in the sense that this mandate was in fact disrespecting the organizations’ religious exercise. The choices of the Supreme Court here allowed for Wheaton College to have a fighting chance at supporting their own religious beliefs without breaking the law. 

Regarding the Wheaton College case, the salient issue regarding religion and constitutional law is deciding whether or not forcing religious educational organizations to participate in insurance that provides emergency contraceptives to students as part of the health plan, even if it goes against their religious beliefs, is a violation of one’s First Amendment rights. This is a matter that concerns one’s right to freely exercise their religion. Forcing an institution to provide emergency contraception and other similar matters that go against their religion imposes a debatable issue on his free exercise of religion. There is also an entanglement issue here as judges debated where to draw the line between church and state. Can the government force all organizations to participate in all forms of health care even if it is strictly against their beliefs? The main points of consideration here are both  individual freedom and religious community freedom free of government interference, and religious protection. 

 I do agree with the ruled decision here, and I think it is a violation of one’s first Amendment rights to require these religious institutions to include aspects of health care that are against their beliefs. In terms of the court’s considerations, I think that requiring religious groups to follow this mandate imposes on one’s individual religious freedom. The government cannot force individuals to comply with rules that strictly defy their religious beliefs. Nor can the government control this faith based organization, as they have the right to operate according to their religious mission free of government interference. Additionally I don’t think that this creates any establishment by rejecting these aspects either. Wheaton College is a private institution in which one must apply to attend and then approve of their acceptance into the school. A majority of students applying to this school are 18 years old or will be by the time they enter the school, and are fully capable of making decisions for themselves. In that case, it is the choice of the student to attend this school and live under their regulations. No one forced students to attend this school, they chose to come here knowing that they have beliefs that contradict the current health care systems. This exemption from the law also does not establish anything nationwide considering all other institutions are still free to act as they wish.