University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Randy Reed Automotive v. Sebelius FA-MO-0010
Docket / Court 5:13-cv-06117 ( W.D. Mo. )
State/Territory Missouri
Case Type(s) Speech and Religious Freedom
Special Collection Contraception Insurance Mandate
Case Summary
On October 8, 2013, a for-profit corporation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of ... read more >
On October 8, 2013, a for-profit corporation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff believes the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employee health plans provide coverage of contraception violates the business owner's religious freedom. The plaintiff, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for both a preliminary and permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against them.

On November 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and the defendant filed an unopposed motion to stay proceedings until the resolution of one of either of two cases implicating the same issues, to which the Supreme Court had recently granted writs of certiorari: (1) Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (Tenth Cir. 2013) or (2) Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 (Third Cir. 2013).

On December 3, 2013, U.S. District Court (Judge Ortrie D. Smith) granted the plaintiff's motion.

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 violate RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. 

In light of this decision, on July 15, 2014, Judge Smith lifted the stay. On September 23, 2014, Judge Smith issued an order continuing the preliminary injunction and directing the parties to file a proposed injunction and judgment. The parties filed their respective proposed injunctions and judgments, and then their replies.

On November 12, 2014, Judge Smith permanently enjoined the defendants from (1) enforcing the ACA's contraceptive coverage requirement, (2) assessing any penalties or fines for noncompliance, and (3) taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the requirement. The case was then dismissed.

Mallory Jones - 03/15/2014
Elizabeth Greiter - 11/08/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Establishment Clause
Free Exercise Clause
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Hospital/Health Department
Discrimination-basis
Religion discrimination
General
Contraception
Fines/Fees
Religious programs / policies
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Plaintiff Description A for-profit corporation that believed the ACA's insurance contraception mandate violates the owner's religious freedom.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration 2013 - n/a
Case Closing Year 2014
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing FA-OK-0001 : Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius (W.D. Okla.)
FA-PA-0007 : Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (E.D. Pa.)
Docket(s)
5:13−cv−06117 (W.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0010-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/12/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Verified Complaint [ECF# 1]
FA-MO-0010-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/08/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 14]
FA-MO-0010-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/15/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' unopposed motion to stay proceedings and notice of non-opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 16]
FA-MO-0010-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/15/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting (1) Motion for Preliminary Injunction and (2) Motion to stay Proceedings [ECF# 17] (W.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0010-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/03/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 29] (W.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0010-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/12/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Smith, Ortrie D. (W.D. Mo.)
FA-MO-0010-0004 | FA-MO-0010-0005 | FA-MO-0010-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Schowengerdt, Dale (Arizona)
FA-MO-0010-0001 | FA-MO-0010-0002 | FA-MO-0010-9000
Smith, Kevin M (Tennessee)
FA-MO-0010-0001 | FA-MO-0010-0002 | FA-MO-0010-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
FA-MO-0010-0003 | FA-MO-0010-9000
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
FA-MO-0010-0003
Ricketts, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
FA-MO-0010-0003

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -