On March 12, 2013, a for-profit company filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida 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 Thomas More Law Center, sought an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that providing insurance coverage for specific forms of contraception, including the morning-after pill and the intrauterine device (IUD), would violate the religious beliefs of the corporation's owners. The plaintiff also asked that the court declare the contraception insurance mandate unconstitutional.
On March 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The defendant opposed this motion on the grounds that the plaintiff had not suffered harm upon which relief could be granted. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, as a corporation, could not exercise religion and could not suffer a violation of its religious beliefs. Oral argument took place on June 17, 2013. On June 25, 2013, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. 960 F.Supp.2d 1328.
On August 22, 2013, the defendant appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The following day, the defendants moved to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal, and Judge Kovachevich granted this motion on August 26, 2013.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), a substantially similar case. In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations.
Presumably based on this decision, the defendants moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and this motion was granted on September 4, 2014.
Also in light of the decision, on February 9, 2015, the parties jointly submitted a Joint Motion for Entry of Injunction and Judgment, which stated that judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiffs on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, that a permanent injunction should be entered, and that all other claims against the defendants should be dismissed. On February 10, 2015, Judge Kovachevich issued a judgment accepting the parties' submission, and on February 11, 2015, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
On July 22, 2015, the parties notified the court that they reached an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs, the terms of which are unknown. The case is now closed.
Mallory Jones - 01/28/2014
Elizabeth Greiter - 11/16/2017
compress summary
