University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Triune Health Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs. FA-IL-0004
Docket / Court 12-cv-06756 ( N.D. Ill. )
Additional Docket(s) [ 13-1478 ]  Federal Court of Appeals
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Special Collection Contraception Insurance Mandate
Case Summary
On August 22, 2012, Triune Health Group, Inc. filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against the US Department of Health and Human Services, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs, represented by the Jubilee Campaign the ... read more >
On August 22, 2012, Triune Health Group, Inc. filed this lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois against the US Department of Health and Human Services, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs, represented by the Jubilee Campaign the Thomas More Society, and private counsel, sought 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 this mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs under the First Amendment and state constitutional laws.

On January 3, 2013, Judge Amy St. Eve granted a preliminary injunction stopping HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate until the court determined the merits of the plaintiffs' case and if further injunctive relief was needed. The defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit (No. 13-1478). On March 14, 2013, Seventh Circuit Judge John Tinder stayed the appeal pending resolution of the appeal in a related case, Korte v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On April 2, 2013, the District Court stayed its proceedings in this case until the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Korte and Grote v. Sebelius.

On September 4, 2014, the defendants voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the preliminary injunction following the Supreme Court's ruling in href=http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12661>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Shortly thereafter, the defendants' proposed a final injunction order in the District Court enjoining the defendants from enforcing the contraceptive coverage requirement against the plaintiffs. On July 22, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a response to this proposed order, objecting that the defendants' proposed order did not protect their religious liberty as thoroughly as the preliminary injunction had, and that the defendants had not sought their input in crafting the new proposed final order. The plaintiffs asked that the court issue a final injunction consistent with the preliminary injunction's broad exemption of the plaintiffs from providing any contraceptives or other health services they found morally objectionable.

On March 30, 2016, Judge Andrea Wood denied to enter a final injunction and dismiss the suit. The court requested that the parties brief several remaining issues, including whether the case would be stayed pending further litigation in other cases addressing the scope of the prior Hobby Lobby decision; and whether the plaintiffs' claims were mooted by new changes to the ACA regulations. On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the court issue "forceful guidance" to the defendants, directing them to agree to a final order with broad protections for their religious liberties. The defendants replied with a motion to dismiss on December 1, 2017, arguing their new regulations provided adequate procedures for the plaintiffs to maintain exemptions from contraceptive care requirements.

The plaintiffs' counsel subsequently failed to appear for a scheduled hearing on May 10, 2018. The plaintiffs were then granted an extension to file a response to the defendants' motion to dismiss. The case was ongoing as of November 11, 2018, with a hearing set for November 14.

Wyatt Fore - 03/22/2013
Richard Jolly - 04/12/2014
Kate Craddock - 02/20/2016
Nathaniel Flack - 11/10/2018


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
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Hospital/Health Department
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Abortion
Contraception
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ยงยง 551 et seq.
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Defendant(s) Illinois Department of Insurance
United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of the Treasury
Plaintiff Description Two individuals, and a company they own (Triune Health Group). Triune Health Group has more than 50 employees, and does not qualify for the religious employer exemption. As a result, they are required by the ACA to offer certain contraception benefits.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2012
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing FA-IN-0004 : Grote Industries v. Sebelius (S.D. Ind.)
FA-IL-0006 : Korte v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (S.D. Ill.)
FA-OK-0001 : Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (W.D. Okla.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District -- Oral Argument
Oyez
By: Oyez
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
12-cv-06756 (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0004-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/23/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
FA-IL-0004-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/22/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint [ECF# 21]
FA-IL-0004-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/15/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Injunction Order [ECF# 50] (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0004-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/03/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notification of Docket Entry [ECF# 52] (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0004-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/06/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges St. Eve, Amy Joan (N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit)
FA-IL-0004-0003 | FA-IL-0004-0004
Wood, Andrea Robin (N.D. Ill.)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Breen, Peter C. (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002 | FA-IL-0004-9000
Brejcha, Thomas (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002 | FA-IL-0004-9000
Casey, Samuel B. (District of Columbia)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002 | FA-IL-0004-9000
Craddock, Jason (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002
Gillen, Patrick (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002
Waxman, David B. (District of Columbia)
FA-IL-0004-0001 | FA-IL-0004-0002 | FA-IL-0004-9000
White, Kevin E (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Ioppolo, Thomas A. (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Malowitz, Marni M. (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Other Lawyers Amiri, Brigitte A. (New York)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Bartelt, Leah (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-9000
Chaiten, Lorie (Illinois)
FA-IL-0004-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -