On October 8, 2013, a for-profit corporation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The ...
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 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
