On November 14, 2013, a group of Catholic non-profit organizations filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan claiming violations of the First Amendment. According to the plaintiffs, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act should have barred the defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing the the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance requirements, even with its accommodations for non-profit organizations. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the mandate was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also asked for a permanent injunction to keep the government from enforcing any contraception coverage requirement against the organizations and other similarly situated religious non-profits. They alleged that the ACA's religious accommodations were a "shell game" that still in effect required them to provide contraceptive coverage to employees.
On November 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On December 27, 2013, U.S. District Court (Judge Gordon J. Quist) denied it on the grounds that the ACA accommodations did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom under RFRA or cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm. 989 F.Supp.2d 577. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. And on January 3, 2014, U.S. District Court (Judge Gordon J. Quist) granted the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief pending appeal.
On January 13, 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government's motion to consolidate this appeal with
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius. Oral arguments took place on May 8, 2014 before Circuit Judges Karen Nelson Moore and John M. Rogers, and District Judge John Nixon (sitting by designation).
On June 11, 2014, in an opinion by Judge Moore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for all plaintiffs. Organizations exempt from the contraception mandate faced no burden on the exercise of their religion, and therefore were unlikely to succeed in proving a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 989 F.Supp.2d 577.
On December 18, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a letter notifying the district court that the plaintiff had filed a petition for certiorari regarding the Sixth Circuit's denial of a preliminary injunction. The district court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion pending the Supreme Court's decision on the plaintiff's petition. On May 29, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment vacating the denial of the plaintiff's requested preliminary injunction. The Court remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit in light of the Court's decision in
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which held that the ACA's contraception coverage mandate exemption for religious non-profits should be extended to closely held private corporations.
On August 21, 2015, a Sixth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Moore and Rogers (as well as District Judge Nixon serving by designation) affirmed its previous denial of a preliminary injunction: the plaintiffs—all non-profits rather than closely held corporations—could not show that the ACA's existing exemptions and accommodations placed a substantial burden on them. 807 F.3d 738.
On March 9, 2016, the plaintiffs' again filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. On June 24, 2016, the Supreme Court issued an order remanding the case to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of
Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Court had declined to strike down the existing ACA accommodations for religious non-profits. On November 2, 2017, the plaintiffs entered a joint stipulation of dismissal and the case is now closed.
Mallory Jones - 03/15/2014
- 06/12/2014
Nathaniel Flack - 01/24/2019
compress summary
