This is one of many lawsuits brought challenging the Obama administration's 2012 Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employers to pay for employees' contraception and abortifacients via medical insurance coverage. Many religious hospitals, charities, universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations or individuals who opposed contraception on doctrinal grounds argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs. For a full list of these cases please see our collection of the Contraception Insurance Mandate cases here.

Several non-profit corporations (Affiliates), which were affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia (Archdiocese) and participated in the archdiocese health care plan, were required under the Affordable Care Act and its regulations (Mandate), as issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to sign and deliver a self-certification to a third party administrator. The administrator could unilaterally choose to supply abortifacients and contraceptive services, in contradiction of the religious belief held by the Affiliates. Meanwhile, the Archdiocese, which was itself exempted from the Mandate, refused to facilitate any provision of contraceptive services in the archdiocese health care plan for the same religious reason.

Not wanting to pay any monetary penalties for noncompliance with the Mandate or to expel the Affiliates from the plan, the Archdiocese, along with the Affiliates, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (the "RFRA"). The complaint against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Treasury was filed on June 2, 2014 and the plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys' fees. They claimed that the defendants, through the Mandate, had imposed a substantial burden on their exercise of religion, in violation of the RFRA as well as the First Amendment Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

On June 26, 2014, the District Court (Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Buckwalter raised doubts as to Plaintiffs' standing to bring their RFRA challenge and found that Plaintiffs had not met their burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. 2014 WL 2892502 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2014). That same day, the Plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit (14-3126).

On September 2, 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's judgement and remanded the case for reconsideration of the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit also enjoined the Government from imposing any fines until the District Court makes its decision on reconsideration.

On August 23, 2016, the parties issued a joint status report indicating that the district court had stayed all proceedings in this matter pending the Third Circuit’s resolution of Zubik v. Burwell, which was remanded after the Supreme Court's directive that the parties develop accommodations for religious exercise. 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016).

The parties continued to file a number of status reports indicating that they were working on a joint resolution to this case. On August 24, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to private agreements entered into by the parties.

The case is now closed.

Emma Bao - 11/12/2014
Elena Malik - 11/08/2017
Michael Beech - 04/05/2019


compress summary