On March 22, 2013, a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs, represented in part by the public interest firm Thomas More Law Center, asked the court for an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the deeply held religious beliefs of the corporation's owners. The case was assigned to Judge Paul D. Borman.
On May 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the enforcement of the mandate, which was to begin to apply to the plaintiff's group health plan on June 1, 2013. The ACLU of Michigan filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants' opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on May 23, 2013. On July 11, 2013, United States District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 2013 WL 3546702. The same day, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (No. 13-1944). On July 17, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the appeal. The District Court granted that motion on July 31, 2013.
On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, holding that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations.
In this case in the Sixth Circuit, the plaintiffs had moved for an injunction pending appeal. In the week following the
Hobby Lobby the parties met twice, and the government withdrew its opposition to the injunctive relief. On July 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judges Alice Batchelder, Danny Boggs, and Eric Clay) granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal: the contraceptive mandate would not apply to the plaintiffs pending the appeal.
On January 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's July 11, 2013 denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. The order noted that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Hobby Lobby, the government agreed with the plaintiffs that the District Court's denial of the preliminary injunction should be reversed. 2015 WL 9850709.
On February 4, 2015, Judge Borman reopened the case in the district court and, based on
Hobby Lobby, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim under RFRA, dismissing all other claims against the defendants, and enjoining the government from enforcing the contraceptive coverage requirement against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs notified the court that the parties had reached agreement as to attorney's fees on May 12, 2015. The case is now closed.
Mallory Jones - 03/31/2014
Edward Mroczkowski - 02/02/2015
Sarah McDonald - 08/12/2018
compress summary
