Filed Date: July 2, 2013
Closed Date: 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 2, 2013, owners of a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
On September 11, 2013, United States District Court (Judge John R. Tunheim) granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stayed the case. The court ordered the defendant not to enforce the ACA insurance mandate regarding contraception against the plaintiffs until 30 days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on either 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), both of which involved similar legal issues and the same defendant as this case.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). 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.
On October 24, 2014, counsel were directed to provide a joint status report regarding the appeals before the Eighth Circuit in the two aforementioned cases.
On November 7, 2014, the parties submitted a joint status report stating that they were engaged in negotiations that could lead to a stipulation regarding entry of judgment.
On November 14, 2014, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby, the parties stipulated and agreed that judgment would be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The stipulation stated that plaintiffs intended to make a motion for attorneys' fees.
On November 19, 2014, the Court granted the stipulation. The plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees is not reflected in the docket, so the parties may have reached a negotiated settlement.
The case appears to be closed.
Summary Authors
Mallory Jones (10/16/2013)
Richard Jolly (4/5/2014)
Elizabeth Greiter (10/25/2017)
O'Brien v. HHS, Eastern District of Missouri (2012)
Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, District of Minnesota (2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13207522/parties/daniel-medford-kathleen-sebelius/
Rau, Steven E. (Minnesota)
Tunheim, John R. (Minnesota)
Dickey, James (Minnesota)
Kaardal, Erick G. (Minnesota)
Bildtsen, Ann M (Minnesota)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Rau, Steven E. (Minnesota)
Tunheim, John R. (Minnesota)
Dickey, James (Minnesota)
Kaardal, Erick G. (Minnesota)
Bildtsen, Ann M (Minnesota)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13207522/daniel-medford-kathleen-sebelius/
Last updated May 13, 2023, 3:02 a.m.
State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 2, 2013
Closing Date: 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Christian owners of a for-profit corporation, who feel that providing insurance coverage for contraception conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
Department of Treasury, Federal
Internal Revenue Service, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Type of Facility: