Case: Eternal World Television Network v. Sebelius
1:13-cv-00521 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Filed Date: Oct. 28, 2013
Closed Date: Jan. 10, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is a revival of a dismissed claim from the Northern District of Alabama. (Eternal World Television Network v. Sebelius 2:12-cv-00501)
On October 28, 2013, a nonprofit Catholic media network filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Plaintiffs, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asked the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA") extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs noted that they had always ensured that their self-insured health plan did not cover services inconsistent with their religious beliefs and contended that compliance with the contraception coverage requirement was a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Plaintiffs further claimed that, though they were eligible for the accommodation to the mandate available to nonprofits, they remained burdened by the mandate which, they alleged, violated the First Amendment.
On June 17, 2014, Judge Callie V. S. Granade granted summary judgment for the defendants on the counts related to RFRA, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause on substantial burden to religious exercise and establishment of religion, and compelled speech. Judge Grande also granted the defendants' motion to dismissed all the remaining constitutional claims. She denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims related to violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. On June 18, 2014, the District Court stayed the remaining claims, all related to the Administrative Procedure Act, pending the appeal of partial summary judgment. On June 18, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. On June 30, 2014, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Eleventh Circuit granted the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument in this case on February 4, 2015, and on February 18, 2016, Judge Jill Pryor ruled that the contraception regulation did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious exercise. The court further held that the government had a compelling interest in ensuring contraception coverage, and the mandate was the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
However, the court stayed its ruling pending a Supreme Court decision in Zubik v. Burwell. On May 16, 2016, in Zubik, the Court issued a per curiam order remanding all seven cases to their respective courts of appeals, ordering the lower courts to give the parties time to come to agreement on an approach that that "accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'" 136 S.Ct 1557, 1560. The Court took no position on the merits of the case. Following the ruling in Zubik, on May 31, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit vacated their prior decision against the plaintiffs, and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing the Supreme Court's concerns in Zubik. The court also enjoined enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against the plaintiffs pending further order of the court.
On July 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the appeal in order to have more time to finish the research necessary for their supplemental brief and they proposed submitting status reports every 60 days or until a resolution between the parties was found. This motion was granted on August 10, 2016.
Also on August 10, 2016, the defendants requested a materially identical order to the remand order given in Zubik. The order was granted on October 3, 2016. The order stipulated that the Government could still ensure that women covered by the plaintiff’s health plans obtained without cost the full range of FDA approved contraceptives and the government could rely on this order to facilitate this process. It also required the plaintiffs not to be penalized for failure to provide the relevant notice.
The parties continued to file status reports until October of 2017. In October of 2017, President Trump signed an executive order related to the Affordable Care Act. On October 6, 2017, new regulations were passed that would affect this case and the department of Health and Human Services conceded that requiring certain objecting entities to follow the requirements in the Affordable Care Act violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the enforcement did not serve a compelling government interest and was not narrowly tailored. In response to this development, on October 16, 2017, the plaintiffs requested a stay while the parties discussed a resolution.
On October 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay, vacate the lower court’s ruling, and remand the case given concessions made by the government and new interpretations of the Affordable Care Act promoted by the Department of Health and Human Services. The government had issued interim final rules that acknowledged that its interests would be satisfied as long as women had access to a plan with some contraceptive coverage, including that of a family member in addition to their earlier concessions.
On November 29, 2018, the ruling of the District Court was vacated. With the challenged rules no longer in effect, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to dismiss on January 9, 2019, which the court granted the next day. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Richard Jolly (3/26/2014)
Kate Craddock (10/23/2016)
Taylor Brook (2/1/2018)
Dan Toubman (4/5/2020)
Related Cases
Eternal World Television Network v. Sebelius, Northern District of Alabama (2012)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, Northern District of Georgia (2012)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4127618/parties/eternal-word-television-network-inc-v-us-department-of-health-and/
Abdo, Alex (Alabama)
Abdo, Alexander Abraham (Alabama)
Albritton, Benjamin Howard (Alabama)
Amezquita, Hope Renee (Alabama)
Altmeyer, Helen Campbell (Alabama)
Abdo, Alexander Abraham (Alabama)
Albritton, Benjamin Howard (Alabama)
Amezquita, Hope Renee (Alabama)
Bamberger, Michael A. (Alabama)
Bannon, Alicia Lorraine (Alabama)
Barker, John Campbell (Alabama)
Batsides, Demetrios Christos (Alabama)
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
Bentley, Elizabeth G. (Alabama)
Berwick, Benjamin L. (Alabama)
Bitter, Adam Nicholas (Alabama)
Bitzer, Windy Cockrell (Alabama)
Blackburn, Kevin Wayne (Alabama)
Block, Joshua Abraham (Alabama)
Byrd, William Crumbly (Alabama)
Cagle, Matthew Thomas (Alabama)
Carter, Clinton Chadwell (Alabama)
Choudhury, Nusrat Jahan (Alabama)
Clark, Melanca Durham (Alabama)
Colangelo-Bryan, Joshua Nicholas (Alabama)
Collette, Matthew M. (District of Columbia)
Coll-Very, Alexis Susan (Alabama)
Condon, Jennifer Brooke (Alabama)
Crane-Hirsch, Daniel Kadane (Alabama)
Crump, Catherine Newby (Alabama)
Diakun, Anna Natalia (Alabama)
DOJ, Michelle Bennett (Alabama)
Eisenberg, Arthur Nelson (Alabama)
Flynn, Sherrie Marie (Alabama)
Garrett, Billington M. (Alabama)
Gorski, Ashley Marie (Alabama)
Gov, Adam Grogg-Federal (Alabama)
Greene, Andrew Robert (Alabama)
Guadagnino, Charles A (Alabama)
Gutierrez, Sandra Ema (Alabama)
Hacker, David Jonathan (Alabama)
Haddad, Richard Inad (Alabama)
Hall, Christopher R. (Alabama)
Hambrick, Jonathan Holland (Alabama)
Harmon, Bart Gregory (Alabama)
Hauss, Brian Matthew (Alabama)
Hearn, Marcellene Elizabeth (Alabama)
Hofmann, Marcia Clare (Alabama)
Howell, Laura Elizabeth (Alabama)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Inactive, Ann Elizabeth (Alabama)
Kirk-Kazhe, Christina V. (Alabama)
Kirkpatrick, Megan A. (Alabama)
Kneisel, Richard Craig (Alabama)
Kolbi-Molinas, Alexa Rebecca (Alabama)
LaCour, Edmund Gerard (Alabama)
Lambert, Marissa Paige (Alabama)
Lantka, Peter Michael (Alabama)
Lawrence, Matthew JB (Alabama)
Lewis, Megan Elizabeth (Alabama)
Lucado, Michael Shane (Alabama)
Lunsford, William Richard (Alabama)
Lustberg, Lawrence S. (Alabama)
LyJordan, Anh-Nguyet Tran (Alabama)
Mahoney, Kathleen Anne (Alabama)
Manes, Jonathan Matthew (Alabama)
Mantoan, Kathryn Grzenczyk (Alabama)
Marshall, Steven Troy (Alabama)
Mathews, Patrick Casey (Alabama)
McCollum, Carrie Ellis (Alabama)
McCracken, John Matthew (Alabama)
Mehta, Leslie Chambers (Alabama)
Merriweather-Tucker, Brooke A. (Alabama)
Messick, Misty Shawn (Alabama)
Miles, Wilson Daniel (Alabama)
Mitchell, Jonathan Franklin (Alabama)
Myron, Laura (District of Columbia)
Nemeroff, Patrick George (District of Columbia)
Newell, Jennifer Chang (Alabama)
O'Connor, Charles Michael (Alabama)
Oldham, Andrew Stephen (Alabama)
Opsahl, Kurt Bradford (Alabama)
O'Rear, Caine O'Rear (Alabama)
Patterson, Peter Andrew (Alabama)
PHV, Lindsay Harrison (Alabama)
Reagan, Henry Theodore (Alabama)
Roberts, Mary-Coleman Mayberry (Alabama)
Robinson, Stuart Justin (Alabama)
Rosberger, Richard Edward (Alabama)
Rudofsky, Lee Philip (Alabama)
Ruzicka, Eric Andrew (Alabama)
Salzman, Joshua Marc (District of Columbia)
Schwartztol, Laurence Michael (Alabama)
Services, United States (Alabama)
Simpson, Lauren Ashley (Alabama)
Sinclair, Winfield J (Alabama)
Smithee, Stephanie Lynn (Alabama)
Spurlock, Matthew Douglas (Alabama)
Steely, Kenneth Scott (Alabama)
Steinberg, Michael J. (Alabama)
Sun, Christine Patricia (Alabama)
Sweren-Becker, Eliza (Alabama)
Tambling, Robert Douglas (Alabama)
Tarver, Courtney Wayne (Alabama)
Toomey, Patrick Christopher (Alabama)
Torrance, Benjamin Henry (Alabama)
Toth, Michael Christopher (Alabama)
Union, American Civil (Alabama)
Warren, Sarah Hawkins (Alabama)
Weaver, Heather Lynn (Alabama)
Weckenmann, Rose Michele (Alabama)
Wessler, Nathan Freed (Alabama)
Wu, Elizabeth Catherine (Alabama)
Youngs, Stuart Andrew (Alabama)
Altmeyer, Helen Campbell (Alabama)
Andrapalliyal, Vinita (Alabama)
Butler, Paul Timothy (Alabama)
Chung, Evelyn Hyun-Jung (Alabama)
Cordaro, Joseph Nicholas (Alabama)
Cranford, Margaret Terry (Alabama)
Cummings, Julie A.K. (Alabama)
Edwards, Karla Jackson (Alabama)
Gillingham, James Garland (Alabama)
Goldsmith, Aaron Steven (Alabama)
Goldstein, Nathan P. (Alabama)
Goldstein, Elena Stacy (Alabama)
Harwood, Ann Elizabeth (Alabama)
Keen, Stanley Edward (Alabama)
Kopplin, Rebecca Michelle (Alabama)
Kruse, Elizabeth Marie (Alabama)
LeMar, Harold William (Alabama)
Mach, Daniel (District of Columbia)
Moore, Christina Bahr (Alabama)
Oswald, Craig Arthur (Alabama)
Parker, Andrea Hedrick (Alabama)
Parry, Robin Springberg (Alabama)
Pharo, William George (Alabama)
Rodenhausen, Patricia Manning (Alabama)
Shepherd, Matt Stephen (Alabama)
Smith, Mary Patricia (Alabama)
Snell, Kevin Matthew (Alabama)
Stark, Benjamin Andrew (Alabama)
Taffe, Christopher V. (Alabama)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4127618/eternal-word-television-network-inc-v-us-department-of-health-and/
Last updated Aug. 24, 2026, 7:21 p.m.
Docket for: Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 28, 2013
Closing Date: Jan. 10, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) is a Catholic media network based in Irondale, Alabama. Plaintiff opposes providing coverage for contraception due to its religious beliefs.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Labor
United States Department of the Treasury
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Alabama 1:13-cv-00521
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 14-12696
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights:
Case Summary of Eternal World Television Network v. Sebelius, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/13619/ (last updated 4/5/2020).