On January 24, 2013, Freshway Logistics and Fresh Unlimited (d/b/a Freshway Foods) and their owners filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)). The plaintiffs, represented by public interest attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice, sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

On March 3, 2013, the District Court (Judge Emmet Sullivan) denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. 926 F.Supp.2d 273. On March 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of preliminary injunction. On March 29, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court granted an injunction pending appeal.

On November 1, 2013, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in denying the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction with the respect to the individual owners and remanded for consideration of other preliminary-injunction factors. The Court held the company owners' religious freedom was burdened when they chose between violating their beliefs and paying a penalty. The Court affirmed, however, the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the Freshway companies, holding that corporations could not exercise religious beliefs. 733 F.3d 1208. This case was remanded to the D.C. District Court.

Both the government and the plaintiffs sought review in the Supreme Court. The two petitions were 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 violated 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.) The next day, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's opinion and remanded for further consideration. (Technically, the Court denied the government's petition, but granted the plaintiffs' petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded.)

On August 18, 2014, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction to allow the plaintiffs to decide how they would like to proceed following the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision. On October 20, 2014, the District Court granted a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs against enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate and associated sanctions, with the agreement of the plaintiffs and the government.

On March 27, 2015 the parties jointly filed a status report stating the parties had reached an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs and they were paid, and the case was awaiting an entry of final judgment. The case is presumed closed.

Wyatt Fore - 04/12/2013
Richard Jolly - 03/16/2014
Kate Craddock - 02/05/2016
Taylor Brook - 02/15/2018


compress summary