Filed Date: Nov. 4, 2013
Closed Date: April 6, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is one of many lawsuits brought challenging the Obama administration's 2012 Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employers to pay for employees' contraception and abortifacients via medical insurance coverage. Many religious hospitals, charities, universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations or individuals who opposed contraception on doctrinal grounds, argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs. For a full list of these cases please see our collection of the Contraception Insurance Mandate cases here.
On November 4, 2013, the managing member of a private company, and the company, Encompass Develop, Design, and Construct, LLC, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Labor, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and United States Department of the Treasury. The plaintiffs brought the suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that providing, paying for, or facilitating access to such services was inconsistent with its religious beliefs and contended that compliance with the contraception requirement was a substantial burden on their religious exercise.
On February 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the first case that the Supreme Court took up challenging the Contraception Mandate. The case had substantially similar facts to the case at hand, as it featured a closely-held for-profit company alleging that the Contraceptive Mandate violated the owner's religious beliefs. That case is discussed at length here.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 134 S. Ct.2751 (2014). There the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permitted for-profit corporations that are closely held (e.g., owned by a family or family trust) to refuse, on religious grounds, to pay for legally mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs and devices in their employees’ health insurance plans.
On February 2, 2015, the Court—with both parties consenting—entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and issued a permanent injunction, due to the ruling in Hobby Lobby. The defendant was enjoined from enforcing the “Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” that required the plaintiff to provide its employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which the plaintiff objected on religious grounds. It also barred defendant from taking any actions against plaintiff for noncompliance with the "Contraception Coverage Requirement." All other complaints against defendant were dismissed. The only issue left undecided was the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.
The parties reached an undisclosed agreement regarding attorneys' fees on June 1, 2015, and asked the court to close the case. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Richard Jolly (5/5/2014)
Michael Beech (4/5/2019)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212372/parties/stewart-v-sebelius/
Lamberth, Royce C. (District of Columbia)
Beauman, Bryan H. (Kentucky)
Elliott, Clinton J. (Kentucky)
Garza, John R. (Maryland)
Berwick, Benjamin Leon (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4212372/stewart-v-sebelius/
Last updated April 20, 2025, 12:38 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 4, 2013
Closing Date: April 6, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Managing member of a privately-held company
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
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
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.
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:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2015 - None
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Reproductive rights: