On March 5, 2013, a company with Christian owners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District of Colorado under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the secretaries of the Department of Health and Human ...
read more >
On March 5, 2013, a company with Christian owners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District of Colorado under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and Department of the Treasury. The plaintiff, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom-Greenwood Village, asked the court for both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the federal rules adopted pursuant to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA) violated its religious freedom by requiring it to provide employee insurance coverage for contraception through its group health insurance plan. Claiming that providing coverage for contraception would contravene both their Christian faith and compel speech contrary to their beliefs, the plaintiffs sought an exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate for themselves and other institutions with similar religious objections.
On March 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 10, 2013, Judge Richard Brooke Jackson denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. On May 16, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed and a hearing was held on May 21. On May 31, 2013, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to stay district court proceedings pending the appeal. The order to stay was granted on June 3, 2013. On August 1, 2013, the court ordered parties to answer questions in light of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius
On August 19, 2013, the Court issued an order stating it would reconsider its decision regarding the preliminary injunction if plaintiffs suspended their appeal and defendants did not oppose or if the 10th Circuit remanded the case in light of Hobby Lobby. On September 17, 2013, the court preliminarily enjoined defendants from enforcing preventative services requirements against plaintiffs.
On October 17, 2013, the defendants moved to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's disposition of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius
, Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius
, and Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius
. October 18, 2013, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted defendants' motion.
On November 15, 2013, defendants appealed the preliminary injunction. On September 4, 2014, the defendants withdrew their appeal following the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby. The Supreme Court ruled that closely-held for-profit corporations could object to the contraception mandate. On October 7, 2014, the District Court entered an amended final judgement finding for the plaintiffs on their RFRA claim, and entering a permanent injunction against the defendants from "any further effort to enforce the 'contraceptive mandate.'" The plaintiffs were also awarded costs. Emma Lawton - 11/25/2013
Mallory Jones - 01/31/2014
Kate Craddock - 07/24/2016