Challenges to the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Rule

June 18, 2013

Jump to Full List of Cases for This Issue

As part of the Affordable Care Act, the federal government issued a regulation that requires health plans to cover contraception without a co-pay. More than 50 court cases are pending challenging the rule, alleging that the rule infringes on religious liberty.

Approximately one-half of the cases have been brought by religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations. The courts have routinely dismissed these cases finding that these organizations do not face any injury because of the federal government's proposals to modify the rule to accommodate nonprofit entities with religious objections, and, in the meantime, these entities do not have to comply with the rule. Most recently, on February 1, the administration issued a proposed rule designed to ensure employees will receive contraception coverage but that the nonprofit employer will not bear the cost or otherwise have any connection with the coverage. This revision should put to rest the nonprofits' legal claims.

The rule will not be modified for for-profit companies. The courts in the for-profit cases are analyzing whether the rule violates religious freedom, and these cases are winding their way through district courts and courts of appeals across the country. It is expected that at least one of these cases will reach the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of 2013 or in 2014.

There are approximately 60 challenges currently pending. Of those, 32 are filed by for-profit companies. Six courts of appeals have issued orders in the for-profit cases, but only to address emergency requests that the rule not be enforced against the plaintiffs in the case pending decision in the appeal. The Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits have denied requests to temporarily block the rule, and Justice Sotomayor has also denied a request to temporarily block enforcement of the rule. The Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have granted requests to temporarily block enforcement of the rule for the specific plaintiffs. Meanwhile, full briefing in these cases is proceeding.

The cases challenging the contraceptive rule are only one set of cases in which institutions and individuals are seeking an exemption from anti-discrimination rules, on the ground that they violate their religious beliefs. There are cases of inns and bakeries closing their doors to same-sex couples and of religious schools firing employees who are unmarried and pregnant, for example, in the name of religion.

In these cases, the ACLU is defending the anti-discrimination rule. While religious freedom gives us all the right to make personal decisions about how to practice religion, it doesn't give institutions or individuals the right to impose their beliefs on others or to discriminate.

Challenges to the Contraception Rules
As of June 13, 2013

 

Guide to Terms

  • Grant of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order or injunction pending appeal means the court ordered the government not to require the plaintiff(s) in the case to comply with the new rule, pending further proceedings in the case. These are temporary orders, not decisions on the merits.
  • Denial of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order or injunction pending appeal means the plaintiff(s) in the case is still under an obligation to comply with the contraceptive rule pending further proceedings. These are temporary orders, not decisions on the merits.
  • Dismissed means the court dismissed the case.
  • Motion to dismiss denied means the court refused to dismiss the case.

FOR-PROFIT CASES

Case Name

Status

American Pulverizer Co. v. HHS, 13-1395 (8th Cir.).

Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, 13-1118 (8th Cir.).

Armstrong v. Sebelius, 13-1218 (10th Cir.).

Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 12-2673 (6th Cir.).

Beckwith Electric v. Sebelius, 13-cv-648 (M.D. Fla.).

Bick Holding, Inc. v. Sebelius, 13-cv-00462 (E.D. Mo.).

Briscoe v. Sebelius, 13-CV-00285 (D. Co.).

Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius, 13-1144 (3rd Cir.).

Domino's Farms Corporation v. Sebelius, 13-1654 (6th Cir.).

Eden Foods v. Sebelius, 13-1677 (6th Cir.).

Geneva College v. Sebelius, 12-CV-207 (W.D. Penn).

Gilardi v. HHS, 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.).

Grote Industries v. Sebelius, 13-1077 (7th Cir.).

Hall v. Sebelius, 13-CV-00295 (D. Minn.).

Hart Electric v. Sebelius, 13-CV-02253 (N.D. Ill.).

Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, 12-6294 (10th Cir.).

Infrastructure Alternatives v. Sebelius, 13-CV-00031 (W.D. Mich.).

Johnson Welded Products v. Sebelius, 13-cv-00609 (D.D.C.).

Korte v. HHS, 12-3841 (7th Cir.).

Legatus v. Sebelius, 13-1092, 13-1093 (6th Cir.).

Lindsay v. Sebelius, 13-CV-01210 (N.D. Ill.).

M&N Plastics v. Sebelius, 13-cv-00819 (D.D.C.).

Mersino Management v. Sebelius, 13-cv-11296 (E.D. Mich.).

MK Chambers Company v. Sebelius, 13-cv-11379 (E.D. Mich.).

Newland v. Sebelius, 12-1380 (10th Cir.).

O Brien v. HHS, 12-3357 (8th Cir.).

Sharpe Holdings v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00092 (E.D. Mo.).

Sioux Chief Mfg. v. Sebelius, 13-CV-00036 (W.D. Mo.).

SMA, LLC v. Sebelius, 13-CV-01375 (D. Minn.).

  • Complaint filed

Tonn and Blank Construction, LLC v. Sebelius, 12-CV-325 (N.D. Ind.).

Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 12-cv-01635 (D.D.C.).

Yep v. HHS, 13-1748 (7th Cir.).

 

NOT-FOR-PROFIT CASES

Case Name

Status

American Family Association v. Sebelius, 13-CV-00032 (N.D. Miss.).

  • Motion for preliminary injunction pending
  • Motion to dismiss pending

Archdiocese of Miami v. Sebelius, 12-CV-23820 (S.D. Fla.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00924 (E.D. Mo.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Ave Maria University v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00088 (M.D. Fla.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 12-5291 (D.C. Cir.).

  • Motion to dismiss case granted by district court
  • Case and appeal to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on hold until Administration issues new rules for non-profits

Catholic Diocese of Biloxi v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00158 (S.D. Miss.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Catholic Diocese of Peoria v. Sebelius, 12-CV-1276 (C.D. Ill.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Colorado Christian University v. Sebelius, 11-CV-3350 (D. Colo.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Conlon v. Sebelius, 12-CV-03932 (N.D. Ill.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Criswell College v. Sebelius, 12-CV-04409 (N.D. Tex.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00159 (N.D. Ind.).

  • Motion to dismiss pending

East Texas Baptist University v. Sebelius, 12-CV-3009 (S.D. Tex.).

  • Complaint filed

Eternal World Television, Inc. v. Sebelius, 12-CV-501 (N.D. Ala.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Franciscan University of Steubenville v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00440 (S.D. Ohio).

  • Dismissed by district court

Geneva College v. Sebelius, 12-CV-207 (W.D. Penn).

Grace Schools v. Sebelius, 12-CV-459 (N.D. Ind.).

  • Motion to dismiss pending

Liberty University v. Lew, 10-2347 (4th Cir.).

Legatus v. Sebelius, 13-1092, 13-1093 (6th Cir.).

Louisiana College v. Sebelius, 12-CV-463 (W.D. La.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Priests for Life v. Sebelius, 12-CV-753 (E.D.N.Y.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, 12-CV-3489 (N.D. Ga).

  • Motion to dismiss pending

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, 13-5091 (D.C. Cir.).

  • Dismissed by district court, appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius, 12-CV-02542 (E.D.N.Y.).

  • Motion to dismiss denied

Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas v. Sebelius, 12-CV-01589 (N.D. Tex.).

  • Dismissed by district court

Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, 12-CV-00314 (N.D. Tex.).

  • Motion to dismiss denied by district court

State of Nebraska v. HHS, 12-3238 (8th Cir.).

  • Dismissed by district court, appeal pending in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Trautman v. Sebelius, 12-CV-123 (W.D. Penn.).

  • Dismissed by district court

University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 13-1479 (7th Cir.).

  • Dismissed by district court, appeal pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 12 -5273 (D.C. Cir.).

  • See Belmont Abbey; cases were consolidated

Zubik v. Sebelius, 13-1228 (3rd Cir.).

  • Dismissed by district court, appeal pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Bolded cases where plaintiffs include both not-for-profit and for-profit parties, and therefore appear in both categories

Statistics image