Case: Franciscan University of Steubenville v. Sebelius

2:12-cv-00440 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Filed Date: May 21, 2012

Closed Date: March 22, 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is one of 12 cases filed on May 21, 2012 in federal district courts across the country by Catholic organizations challenging the contraception mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).Plaintiffs, two Roman Catholic, non-profit organizations, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Federal Government under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Plaintiffs, repr…

This is one of 12 cases filed on May 21, 2012 in federal district courts across the country by Catholic organizations challenging the contraception mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Plaintiffs, two Roman Catholic, non-profit organizations, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the Federal Government under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the ACA extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that providing, paying for, or facilitating access to such services is inconsistent with its religious beliefs and contend that compliance with the contraception requirement is a substantial burden on their religious exercise.

On March 22, 2013, the Court (Judge Algenon L. Marbley) granted the Federal Government's motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness. The court noted that the Federal Government had initiated a safe-harbor period while it refashioned the regulation. As a result, Plaintiffs could not show that it faced any penalty or restriction based on the existing regulatory requirement or that the harm alleged will ever occur. The court recognized that, in fact, harm to the plaintiffs was unlikely to occur because they would likely fall into the broadened definition of religious employer as put forth in the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM).

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (5/22/2012)

Richard Jolly (3/30/2014)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4363264/parties/franciscan-university-of-steubenville-v-sebelius/


Judge(s)

Abel, Mark R. (Ohio)

Attorney for Plaintiff

DeJulius, Leon F. Jr. (Pennsylvania)

Goetz, John D. (Pennsylvania)

Attorney for Defendant

Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)

Gallagher, Erin Healy (Ohio)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:12-cv-00440

Docket

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

Docket
2

2:12-cv-00440

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

May 21, 2012

May 21, 2012

Complaint
68

2:12-cv-00440

Order and Opinion

March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013

Order/Opinion

2013 WL 1189854

2:12-cv-00440

Settlement Agreement

Oct. 13, 2017

Oct. 13, 2017

Settlement Agreement

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4363264/franciscan-university-of-steubenville-v-sebelius/

Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 6:24 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Speech and Religious Freedom

Special Collection(s):

Contraception Insurance Mandate

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 21, 2012

Closing Date: March 22, 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Roman Catholic Organizations of Ohio

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Department of Treasury, Federal

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal

U.S. Department of Labor, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Hospital/Health Department

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)

Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Free Exercise Clause

Establishment Clause

Freedom of speech/association

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Religious programs / policies

Discrimination Basis:

Religion discrimination

Reproductive rights:

Contraception