Filed Date: Dec. 20, 2013
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 20, 2013, a group of non-profit organizations filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiffs, including The Ave Maria Foundation, Domino's Farms Petting Farm, and Thomas More Law Center, are represented by the public interest firm The Thomas More Law Center. The plaintiffs asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate, even with the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiffs 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-help, Catholic religious beliefs.
On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant. The defendants opposed this motion on the grounds that the accommodation to the ACA mandate does not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom under RFRA or cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm.
On January 13, 2013 U.S. District Court (Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.) granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 23, 2014, the court granted a joint motion to stay the case pending the defendants' decision to appeal the preliminary injunction. The order referenced two expedited appeals in similar cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, and Michigan Catholic Conference v. Sebelius. Defendants filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit on March 13, 2014, but the case closed before the Court of Appeals ruled on the case. The plaintiffs jointly stipulated to the case's dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on February 2, 2018, presumably due to the result of Zubik v. Burwell, and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Mallory Jones (2/9/2014)
Elizabeth Heise (11/18/2018)
Weingartz Supply Co. v. Sebelius, Eastern District of Michigan (2012)
Michigan Catholic Conference v. Sebelius, Western District of Michigan (2013)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, Middle District of Tennessee (2013)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5335724/parties/the-ave-maria-foundation-v-sebelius/
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
Grogg, Adam Anderson (District of Columbia)
Hartnett, Kathleen R. (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Bennett, Michelle Renee (District of Columbia)
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
Grogg, Adam Anderson (District of Columbia)
Hartnett, Kathleen R. (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Lieber, Sheila M. (District of Columbia)
McQuade, Barbara L. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5335724/the-ave-maria-foundation-v-sebelius/
Last updated April 13, 2024, 3:04 a.m.
State / Territory: Michigan
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 20, 2013
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are non-profit organizations, run by Catholic owners who believe the accommodation to the ACA's contraception insurance mandate offered to religions, non-profits violates their religious freedom
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Labor (Washington), Federal
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Washington), 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
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights: