On November 14, 2013, a non-profit organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate, even with the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against the organization and other similarly situated religious non-profits.

On November 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On December 27, 2013, U.S. District Court (Judge Gordon J. Quist) denied this motion on the grounds that the accommodation to the ACA mandate does not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom under RFRA or cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th 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 Court of Appeals granted the U.S.'s motion to consolidate this appeal with Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius. The oral argument occurred 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 Judge's denial of a preliminary injunction, for all plaintiffs. Organizations exempt from the contraception mandate faced no burden on their exercise of their religion, and therefore were unlikely to succeed in proving a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And organizations eligible to receive an "accommodation" under the law needed only to provide a "self-certification" that documented that they had a religious objection. This self-certification did not constitute an unlawful religious burden, Judge Moore explained. For similar reasons, the law did not violate the First Amendment's free speech, free exercise, or establishment clauses.

Mallory Jones - 03/15/2014
- 06/12/2014


compress summary