On October 9, 2012, a family of Catholic business owners filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury. They alleged that rules under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") violated their religious freedom by requiring them to provide coverage for contraception through their companies' group health insurance plans. Providing contraceptive coverage would contravene their Catholic faith, so the plaintiffs sought an exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate for themselves and other business owners with similar religious objections. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Center for Law & Justice, asked the court for both declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 10, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and filed for a preliminary injunction.
On December 14, 2012, District Court Judge Michael J. Reagan denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that indirect financial support of subjectively objectionable conduct was not a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious freedom. 2012 WL 6553996. The plaintiffs appealed this denial to the Seventh Circuit (Docket No. 12-03841). On December 28, 2012, a three-judge panel granted the plaintiffs' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that the coerced coverage of contraception imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious freedom. Korte v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6757353 (Judges Joel M. Flaum, Ilana Diamond Rovner, and Diane S. Sykes). On January 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit consolidated the case with Grote v. Sebelius (
FA-IN-0004) The same three-judge panel heard arguments in the case on May 22, 2013.
On November 8, 2013, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs and their companies could challenge the mandate and state a valid claim under RFRA. The Court remanded the case with instructions to the District Court to enter preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the contraception mandate against the plaintiffs. Grote v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654.
The defendant agencies sought review in the Supreme Court, and on November 27, 2013, the case was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also known as Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius) and
Conestoga Wood Specialities Corps. The Hobby Lobby
decision was issued on June 30, 2014. In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. The Court emphasized that alternative methods for meeting the government's asserted interest were available. 134 S.Ct. 2751. The next day, the Supreme Court denied the government's certiorari petition for review in this case. 134 S.Ct. 2902.
On July 28, 2014, the district court lifted the stay. On August 12, 2014, the Seventh Circuit awarded the plaintiffs $578.80 in costs. On November 7, 2014, the Court granted the joint motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their RFRA claim, entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the contraception services mandate, and dismissed all other claims against the defendants. Finally, on February 26, 2015, the district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and noted that the parties had reached an independent settlement on attorneys' fees and costs. The case is closed.
Emma Lawton - 11/17/2013
Richard Jolly - 03/23/2014
Kate Craddock - 02/21/2016
Nathaniel Flack - 10/30/2018
compress summary
