On June 24, 2013, a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of West Virginia under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, represented by the public interest firm Liberty Institute, sought an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the religious beliefs of the corporation's owners. On July 26, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint but did not make any substantive changes.

On August 23, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss to the case on the grounds that the plaintiff's free exercise of religion was not substantially burdened by the ACA mandate. On December 10, 2013, Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia stayed the case pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), a substantially similar case.

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). In a 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.

In light of this decision, on July 15, 2014, the parties jointly submitted a proposed Consent Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, preliminarily enjoining the defendants from enforcing the ACA's contraceptive requirement against the plaintiffs or assessing any penalties or fines for noncompliance.

On December 9, 2014, the parties jointly moved for an Entry of Injunction and Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, which permanently enjoined the defendants from (1) enforcing the ACA's contraceptive coverage requirement, (2) assessing any penalties or fines for noncompliance, and (3) taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the requirement.

On May 29, 2015, Judge Johnston issued a judgment accepting the parties' submission. On October 28, 2015, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement on the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs, the terms of which are unknown. On October 30, 2015, the case was dismissed.

Mallory Jones - 10/16/2013
- 02/03/2014
Elizabeth Greiter - 11/16/2017


compress summary