University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Eden Foods v. Sebelius FA-MI-0008
Docket / Court 2:13-cv-11229-DPH-MAR ( E.D. Mich. )
State/Territory Michigan
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Special Collection Contraception Insurance Mandate
Case Summary
On March 20, 2013, Eden Foods, Inc., and its owner filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Law ... read more >
On March 20, 2013, Eden Foods, Inc., and its owner filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a Catholic non-profit legal services, seek to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Plaintiffs contend that providing contraception coverage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.

On March 22, 2013, the court (Judge Denise Page Hood) denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, noting that they had not expressed a distinction between the corporate entity Eden Foods and the owner who has brought the instant suit as Eden Foods' sole shareholder. Without this, it is not clear that the owner has standing to challenge the ACA on behalf of Eden Foods for purposes of the RFRA.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Regarding the RFRA claim, the court agreed with other decision holding that the ACA mandate applies only to the corporate entity, not to its officers or owners, and that as to the individual owners, any burden imposed on them individually by the contraception mandate is remote and too attenuated to be considered substantial for purposes of the RFRA. And regarding plaintiffs' First Amendment complaints, the court found that the ACA was generally applicable and rationally related to the government objective of promoting public health and gender equality.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision denying preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 21, 2013. On May 31, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings pending the appeal. The court (Judge Denise Page Hood) granted the motion on June 12, 2013.

On October 24, 2013 the Sixth Circuit (Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey) denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 2013 WL 1190001 at 15. The court relied on the law of the Circuit, as recently announced in Autocam Corp. v. SebeliusFA-MI-0005, which established that individual owners/shareholders have no standing to bring their claims against the government in their individual capacities under RFRA, nor can they assert the individual plaintiffs' claims on their behalf. The court emphasized that the incorporated business is a distinct legal entity with legal rights, obligations, power, and privileges different form those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs.

On November 12, 2013, plaintiffs petitioned for write of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. That petition was held at the Supreme Court while the Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also known as Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius). The Hobby Lobby decision issued on June 30, 2014: In 5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. The Court emphasized, however, that alternative methods for meeting the government's asserted interest were available. In light of the Hobby Lobby opinion, on July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment in this (Eden Foods) case, and remanded it to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further
consideration.

Wyatt Fore - 04/19/2013
Richard Jolly - 04/03/2014
- 07/02/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Establishment Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Defendant-type
Hospital/Health Department
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Contraception
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยงยง 551 et seq.
Defendant(s) United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of Treasury
Plaintiff Description Eden Foods, an organic food market, and its owner, who holds sincere Catholic religious beliefs.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Docket(s)
2:13-cv-11229-DPH-MAR (E.D. Mich.) 07/10/2015
FA-MI-0008-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 03/20/2013
FA-MI-0008-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Notice of Setting Hearing Date on Motion for Preliminary Injunction 03/22/2013 (2013 WL 1190001) (E.D. Mich.)
FA-MI-0008-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction 05/21/2013 (E.D. Mich.)
FA-MI-0008-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Joint Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal 06/12/2013 (E.D. Mich.)
FA-MI-0008-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [affirming denial of preliminary injunction] 10/24/2013 (733 F.3d 626)
FA-MI-0008-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Letter [Mentionioning a Filed Writ of Certiorari] 11/14/2013
FA-MI-0008-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Certiorari -- Summary Disposition 07/01/2014 (134 S.Ct. 2902 / 189 L.Ed.2d 852)
FA-MI-0008-0007.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Supreme Court website
Order 08/04/2014
FA-MI-0008-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/07/2015
FA-MI-0008-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Injunction and Judgment 02/12/2015 (E.D. Mich.)
FA-MI-0008-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Sixth Circuit)
FA-MI-0008-0005
Hood, Denise Page (E.D. Mich.)
FA-MI-0008-0002 | FA-MI-0008-0003 | FA-MI-0008-0004 | FA-MI-0008-0010 | FA-MI-0008-9000
Randon, Mark Court not on record
FA-MI-0008-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Mersino, Erin Elizabeth (Michigan)
FA-MI-0008-0001 | FA-MI-0008-9000
Thompson, Richard (Michigan)
FA-MI-0008-0001
Defendant's Lawyers Berwick, Benjamin Leon (District of Columbia)
FA-MI-0008-9000
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
FA-MI-0008-9000
Other Lawyers Steinberg, Michael J. (Michigan)
FA-MI-0008-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -