On March 26, 2014, three individual plaintiffs and their wholly-owned family company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Plaintiffs alleged that the provision of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") that mandated group health plans include coverage for "all [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity," posed a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

On April 30, 2014, District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraception mandate until thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued a decision in O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, 894 F.Supp.2d 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2012) or Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12–2804 2013 WL 101927 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2013), or until thirty days after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (Tenth Cir. 2013) or Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 (Third Cir. 2013).

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 November 14, 2014, the parties jointly submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Injunction in Favor of Plaintiffs and Stipulation for Fee Motion Briefing Schedule, which 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.

On November 18, 2014, Judge Schiltz issued a judgment accepting the parties' submission. On December 30, 2014, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. On December 31, 2014, Judge Schiltz granted this stipulation in an order extending the deadline to March 3, 2015. The docket shows no record of the plaintiffs moving for attorneys' fees, and the case now appears closed.

Richard Jolly - 11/05/2014
Elizabeth Greiter - 12/07/2017


compress summary