On December 3, 2013, the University of Notre Dame, a religious nonprofit university, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Notre Dame alleged that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate, even with the accommodation for nonprofit religious organizations, violated the Establishment Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Notre Dame sought preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate to avoid a violation of Notre Dame's deeply held religious beliefs.
On December 20, 2013, the District Court (Judge Philip P. Simon) denied Notre Dame's motion for preliminary injunction. The Court found that the ACA's insurance accommodation, which allowed the head of an eligible organization to provide self-certification which in turn triggered a third-party administrator to provide contraception coverage to the organization's employees, did not impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of the religion. University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 988 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D. IN. 2013) The same day, Notre Dame filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (No. 13-3853) and a motion for preliminary injunction with the District Court pending their appeal.
On December 23, 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for injunction pending appeal and on December 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiff's emergency motion for injunction pending appeal.
On February 21, 2014, the Seventh Circuit (Judge Richard Posner) affirmed the District Court's denial of preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals found that the ACA's insurance accommodation was consistent with the balancing act required by RFRA and therefore it did not substantially burden the free exercise of plaintiffs. University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547 (N.D. IN. 2014). On May 7, 2014, the Seventh Circuit denied plaintiffs' April 4, 2014, motion for rehearing.
Notre Dame sought review in the Supreme Court, and on March 9, 2015, the Court granted the writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of its decision (after the Seventh Circuit's decision) in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 135 U.S. 1258 (2015) (cert. granted). In
Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court had held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA, when applied to closely held for-profit corporations. The Court emphasized, however, that alternative methods for meeting the government's asserted interest were available.
On remand, after hearing oral arguments on April 22, 2015, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of preliminary injunction on May 19, 2015, holding that Notre Dame had still not met its burden of establishing an entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2015).
On June 17, 2016, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ––– (2016). Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 2007 (2016). The Supreme Court explained that through the
Zubik litigation, the petitioners made the Government aware of their view that they met requirements for exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds, and nothing precluded the Government from relying on this notice.
As it appeared that proceedings in the Seventh Circuit would continue for some time, in district court the case was administratively closed on March 2, 2017, until the appellate proceedings concluded. Meanwhile, in circuit court the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and were required to file status reports.
On October 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a new rule offering an exemption to any employer that objects to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. Thus, on October 17, 2017, the Seventh Circuit closed the case after the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the appeal.
Mallory Jones - 04/07/2014
Richard Jolly - 05/11/2014
Beth Richardson - 07/08/2015
MJ Koo - 03/14/2017
compress summary
