On March 26, 2013, Hart Electric, a for-profit corporation filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The plaintiff, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, sought a judgment that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate violated the First Amendment, RFRA and APA. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for both a preliminary and permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against them because it violates the owners' deeply held religious beliefs. They also sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees.
Under the government Mandate, which went into effect on August 1, 2012, all non-exempt employers that offer non-grandfathered group health plans were required to provide coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization, and education and counseling, despite their religious beliefs. While nonprofits were granted a “temporary safe-harbor,” for religious reasons, the plaintiffs did not qualify as they were for-profit employers.
The plaintiff filed moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the health insurance requirement until the resolution of two similar cases before the Seventh Circuit. On April 18, the U.S. District Court (Judge Ruben Castillo) granted the motion and stayed proceedings until thirty days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in the consolidated cases of
Korte v. Sebelius and
Grote Industry, LLC v. Sebelius.
On November 8, 2013, the Seventh Circuit ruled for the two cases that the contraception mandate substantially burdens religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Act. 735 F.3d 654. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit had granted preliminary injunctive relief for the same mandate for for-profit employers. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs moved to extend the preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings until forty-five days after Supreme Court addresses analogous cases in
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, which was granted on January 21, 2014.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled for the consolidated case of
Conestoga Woods and
Hobby Lobby that the Mandate imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of religion under the statute. 573 U.S. 682. Subsequently, Judge Castillo granted the plaintiff’s request for a 30 day extension of the preliminary injunction during the time the government determined an appropriate course of action in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
In light of the decisions above, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment in their favor on their RFRA claim and the entry of a permanent injunction. On September 23, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction for additional time to consider the defendants’ proposal of injunction.
On November 3, 2014, the Court ordered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement against plaintiffs and anyone in connection with their health plans.
The case is now closed.
Mallory Jones - 03/24/2014
Averyn Lee - 05/30/2019
compress summary
