March for Life v. Burwell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the contraceptive mandate violates equal-protection principles because it lacks a rational basis for discriminating between religious and non-religious objectors
• concluding that the contraceptive mandate violates equal-protection principles because it lacks a rational basis for discriminating between religious and non-religious objectors
• concluding that the contraceptive mandate violates equal-protection principles because it lacks a rational basis for discriminating between religious and non-religious objectors
• noting that individuals are not “the direct objects” of the Contraceptive Mandate
• finding redressability where plaintiffs submitted a letter from an insurer showing it was prepared to offer a plan that did 10 not cover contraception
• reviewing case consolidated under Rule 65(a)(2) as cross-motions for summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).