On February 14, 2013, the Catholic managing partner of a law firm and the law firm itself filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights to free speech, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, 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 their religious freedom by requiring the corporation to provide employee insurance coverage for contraception through its group health insurance plan. Claiming that providing coverage for contraception would require them to violate their religious beliefs and moral values, the plaintiffs sought an exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate for themselves and other institutions with similar religious objections.

On February 28, 2013, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. On March 5, 2013, defendants entered a notice of non-opposition to the preliminary injunction and moved to stay proceedings. On March 7, 2013, the Honorable Sheila Finnegan remanded proceedings to U.S. District Judge Ronald A. Guzman in light of defendants' non-opposition.

On March 20, 2013, Judge Guzman granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of Korte v. Sebelius and Grote v. Sebelius, two cases before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that also dealt with parties seeking exemption from the ACA on religious grounds. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided Korte and Grote on November 9, 2013. The court held that the contraception mandate substantially burdened the religious exercise of plaintiff corporations and their owners under the Religious Freedom Act, the mandate did not serve a compelling government interest, and was not the least restrictive means of advancing such an interest.

On January 10, 2014, Judge Guzman granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend both the preliminary injunction and the stay of proceedings until forty-five days after the resolution of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, two cases in which the Supreme Court granted cert that also dealt with parties seeking exemption from the ACA on religious grounds.

After the Supreme Court issued its decisions in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius (FA-OK-0001) and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (FA-PA-0007) on June 30, 2014, holding that the contraceptive mandate did substantially burden the exercise of religion under the RFRA for for-profit corporations, the defendants made multiple motions to stay the proceedings and extend the preliminary injunction while they re-evaluated how they wanted to proceed in the case. Finally, on October 15, 2014, the parties reached a joint agreement that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim. Judge Guzman signed the injunction and judgment on December 3, 2014, permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, requiring the plaintiffs to provide their employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods. Plaintiffs did not submit a petition for attorneys’ fees or costs, which thereby concluded the case.

Emma Lawton - 11/11/2013
Richard Jolly - 04/04/2014
Sarah Du - 11/02/2017


compress summary