Filed Date: March 26, 2013
Closed Date: 2014
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 26, 2013, Hart Electric, a for-profit corporation filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The plaintiff, represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, sought a judgment that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate violated the First Amendment, RFRA and APA. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for both a preliminary and permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against them because it violates the owners' deeply held religious beliefs. They also sought declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees.
Under the government Mandate, which went into effect on August 1, 2012, all non-exempt employers that offer non-grandfathered group health plans were required to provide coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization, and education and counseling, despite their religious beliefs. While nonprofits were granted a “temporary safe-harbor,” for religious reasons, the plaintiffs did not qualify as they were for-profit employers.
The plaintiff filed moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the health insurance requirement until the resolution of two similar cases before the Seventh Circuit. On April 18, the U.S. District Court (Judge Ruben Castillo) granted the motion and stayed proceedings until thirty days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in the consolidated cases of Korte v. Sebelius and Grote Industry, LLC v. Sebelius.
On November 8, 2013, the Seventh Circuit ruled for the two cases that the contraception mandate substantially burdens religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Act. 735 F.3d 654. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit had granted preliminary injunctive relief for the same mandate for for-profit employers. On January 10, 2014, the plaintiffs moved to extend the preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings until forty-five days after Supreme Court addresses analogous cases in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, which was granted on January 21, 2014.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled for the consolidated case of Conestoga Woods and Hobby Lobby that the Mandate imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ exercise of religion under the statute. 573 U.S. 682. Subsequently, Judge Castillo granted the plaintiff’s request for a 30 day extension of the preliminary injunction during the time the government determined an appropriate course of action in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
In light of the decisions above, the parties agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment in their favor on their RFRA claim and the entry of a permanent injunction. On September 23, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction for additional time to consider the defendants’ proposal of injunction.
On November 3, 2014, the Court ordered a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Contraceptive Coverage Requirement against plaintiffs and anyone in connection with their health plans.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Mallory Jones (3/24/2014)
Averyn Lee (5/30/2019)
Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Western District of Oklahoma (2012)
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4261130/parties/hartenbower-v-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services/
Castillo, Rubén (Illinois)
Gammill, Carly F. (Tennessee)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
Chicago, AUSA - (Illinois)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4261130/hartenbower-v-united-states-department-of-health-and-human-services/
Last updated May 2, 2025, 2:31 a.m.
State / Territory: Illinois
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 26, 2013
Closing Date: 2014
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A for-profit corporation that believes the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate violates its owner's religious freedom.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
U.S. Department of Labor, Federal
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Facility 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
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights: