Filed Date: Nov. 14, 2013
Closed Date: 2015
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 14, 2013, a for-profit corporation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under 42 U.S.C. §1983, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate was unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against the corporation because it violated the owner's religious freedom.
On November 22, 2013, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings. On November 27, 2013, Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the motion and stayed the case pending resolution of the appeal in either of the cases (1) O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, 894 F.Supp.2d 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2012) or (2) Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12–2804 2013 WL 101927 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2013), or until the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a substantially similar case, whichever occurred first. Both of the aforementioned cases involved similar legal issues and the same defendant.
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), a substantially similar case. 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.
In light of this decision, on November 14, 2014, the parties jointly submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Injunction in Favor of Plaintiffs and Stipulation for Fee Motion Briefing Schedule, which permanently enjoined the defendants from (1) enforcing the ACA's contraceptive coverage requirement, (2) assessing any penalties or fines for noncompliance, and (3) taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the requirement.
On November 18, 2014, Judge Ericksen issued a judgment accepting the parties' submission. On December 30, 2014, the parties stipulated for an extension of time for the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. Judge Ericksen granted this stipulation in an order extending the deadline to March 3, 2015. The docket shows no record of the plaintiffs moving for attorneys' fees, and the case now appears closed.
Summary Authors
Mallory Jones (3/15/2014)
Elizabeth Greiter (11/2/2017)
O'Brien v. HHS, Eastern District of Missouri (2012)
Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, Western District of Oklahoma (2012)
Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, District of Minnesota (2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13207703/parties/doboszenski-sons-inc-v-sebelius/
Ericksen [Lancaster], Joan N. (Minnesota)
Noel, Franklin L. (Minnesota)
Kaardal, Erick G. (Minnesota)
Bildtsen, Ann M (Minnesota)
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Lieber, Sheila M. (District of Columbia)
Marti, John R. (Minnesota)
Ricketts, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
Ericksen [Lancaster], Joan N. (Minnesota)
Noel, Franklin L. (Minnesota)
Kaardal, Erick G. (Minnesota)
Bildtsen, Ann M (Minnesota)
Delery, Stuart F. (District of Columbia)
Humphreys, Bradley Philip (District of Columbia)
Lieber, Sheila M. (District of Columbia)
Marti, John R. (Minnesota)
Ricketts, Jennifer (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13207703/doboszenski-sons-inc-v-sebelius/
Last updated Jan. 21, 2023, 3:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Contraception Insurance Mandate
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 14, 2013
Closing Date: 2015
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A for-profit corporation that believed that the ACA's contraception coverage mandate violated the owner's religious beliefs.
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 Labor, Federal
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 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
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2013 - None
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-basis:
Type of Facility: