Case Summary
**Case Summary: Wheaton College v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell (Docket No. 2663420)**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
**Decided:** 2014
**Background:**
Wheaton College, a private Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, challenged the application of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The ACA required employer health plans to provide coverage for contraceptive services, which Wheaton College argued violated its religious beliefs. The college contended that completing a self-certification form to opt out of the requirement still implicated it in the provision of contraceptive services, infringing on its First Amendment rights.
**Parties Involved:**
- **Appellant:** Wheaton College
- **Appellee:** Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
**Legal Issues:**
The legal issues in this case revolved around:
1. Whether Wheaton College had standing to challenge the contraceptive mandate.
2. Whether the mandate imposed a substantial burden on the college’s religious exercise.
3. The implications of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in this context.
**Ruling:**
The court ultimately ruled in favor of Wheaton College, granting a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the mandate, recognizing that the college's religious exercise was substantially burdened by the requirements imposed by the ACA. The ruling emphasized the importance of protecting religious freedoms under the RFRA.
**Significance:**
The case highlighted the tension between federal healthcare regulations and religious liberty, setting a precedent for similar cases involving religious organizations and the ACA contraceptive mandate. It underscored the intricacies of balancing governmental interests in public health alongside the rights of religious institutions to exercise their beliefs freely.
**Conclusion:**
Wheaton College v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell is a significant case in the ongoing dialogue about the intersection of health care law and religious freedom, making clear that organizations with religious objections can seek relief from regulations that they believe infringe upon their beliefs.