HHS Mandate Cases by Circuit
Prepared by Kim Colby
Last Updated February 8, 2013
D.C. CIRCUIT:
Court of Appeals: Five cases have been appealed to the Circuit.
On August 29, 2012, a Christian college filed a Notice of Appeal of the lower courts dismissal of its action against the Mandate. On September 14, 2012, another Christian college filed a Notice of Appeal of the lower courts dismissal of its action against the Mandate. On December 18, 2012, the DC Circuit reversed both district courts’ dismissals of the Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey College challenges, which had been dismissed on standing and ripeness grounds. The appellate court ruled that the colleges had standing and the cases were not moot, but that they would be held in abeyance on prudential ripeness grounds because of the federal government’s promise that a rule change will be made. The court required reports every 60 days on the status of the rulemaking process. On August 13, 2013, the Court issued an order remanding these cases to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with instructions to vacate their judgments and dismiss the complaints as moot.
On January 15, 2013, the government appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction to Tyndale House Publishers by the District Court. The government then voluntarily moved to dismiss the same, which was memorialized in an order filed May 3, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, a Catholic owned fresh produce processor, packer and carrier appealed the denial of a preliminary injunction in District Court. On March 21, 2013, the DC Court of Appeals denied Appellants Motion for Injunction pending appeal, but upon its own motion for reconsideration, the Court granted a Motion for injunction pending appeal on March 29, 2013. This case has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument scheduled for September 24, 2013.
On March 25, 2013, Catholic University and the Archdiocese of Washington filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of their action in district court. The Court held, on its own motion, that the University’s appeal be held in abeyance pending further order of the court and final disposition of Wheaton College. On August 12, 2013, Appellants in the Catholic University case filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in light of the government’s promulgation of the final rule on June 28, 2013. In their Motion, Appellants object to the final rule as a continued infringement upon their free exercise arguing that the “accommodation” is nothing more than an accounting gimmick whereby, as before, Appellants’ health insurance plans serve as the conduit by which “free” contraception is delivered to Appellants’ employees. Appellants ask the Court to grant their request for preliminary injunction and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on the merits.
District Courts: Eight lawsuits have been filed. On November 10, 2011, Belmont Abbey College filed an action in District Court. On July 18, 2012, Wheaton College filed an action in District Court. Two separate district judges dismissed two cases by Wheaton College and Belmont Abbey on standing and ripeness grounds. The courts ruled that the government’s assertion that an amendment to the final rule was coming vitiated the injury for standing purposes as well as rendering the case not sufficiently ripe for judicial review of the challenged regulation. These dismissals were reversed by the court of appeals, which then determined to hold the cases in abeyance.
On May 21, 2012, Catholic University of America, the Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic non-profits filed an action in district court against the mandate.The district court dismissed the case on January 25, 2013 on ripeness grounds in light of the Court of Appeals’ Wheaton College decision.
On October 2, 2012, a for-profit Bible Publisher, Tyndale House Publishers filed an action in district court against the Mandate. On November 16, 2012, the district court issued an injunction in favor of Tyndale and its owner. The judge ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was violated because the government had not shown that it had a compelling interest in forcing specifically Tyndale House Publishers itself to provide the mandated insurance coverage, particularly in light of the number of employers otherwise exempted from compliance with the HHS Mandate. The government filed an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals, then voluntarily dismissed the same. There are now cross motions for summary judgment pending before the US District Court in Tyndale.
On January 24, 2013, a Catholic owned fresh produce processor, packer and carrier filed an action against the Mandate in US District Court for the District of Columbia. On March 3, 2013, Plaintiffs were denied a preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs appealed this decision on March 4, 2013 and the proceedings were stayed.
On April 30, 2013, an action was filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of a Catholic owrned company, Johnson Welded Products, Inc. On May 24, 2013, the company was granted a preliminary injunction and Defendants were enjoined until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. from enforcing the Mandate against Plaintiffs. All proceedings were stayed until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the court of appeals in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
On July 24, 2013, a family owned Christian law firm, Willis & Willis PLC, filed a Complaint against the Mandate and secured an unopposed Preliminary Injunction on August 23, 2013. Pursuant to the Order, enforcement is enjoined until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.),
On August 5, 2013, a Christian owned family business that manufactures sights and scopes for the military, law enforcement, and hunters HYPERLINK "http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TrijiconComplaint.pdf" \t "_blank" filed suit against the HHS Mandate. On August 7, Trijicon filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction which was unopposed by the Department of Justice. On August 13, 2013, the Court issued an Order staying proceedings pending the issuance of a mandate by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Gilardi v. Department of Health and Human Services. The U.S. Department of Justice responded by notifying the court that it will not oppose Michigan-based Trijicon’s HYPERLINK "http://www.adfmedia.org/files/TrijiconPImotion.pdf" \t "_blank" request for a court order that would suspend enforcement of the mandate against the company and the proceedings were stayed.
FIRST CIRCUIT
No cases have been filed.
Court of Appeals:
District Courts:
SECOND CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: No cases have yet reached the Second Circuit.
District Courts: Two cases have been filed, but neither has reached the court of appeals.
On February 15, 2012, Priests for Life filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of New York. The Court found the issues raised by Priests for Life not fit for judicial decision citing the fact that although the current regulations are published, the government has repeatedly indicated their intent to amend them. As a result, on April 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order dismissing Priests for Life’s claims against the government.
On May 21, 2012, the Archdiocese of New York and Rockville Centre as well as Catholic non-profits and high schools filed an action in the Eastern District of New York. The Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss as to the Archdiocese and a Catholic insurance group but granted the motion as to the Diocese and Catholic Charities. The court held that preparatory costs in advance of the effective date of a binding regulation were sufficiently harmful to establish standing. The opinion provides an excellent exposition regarding the reasons why the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the temporary enforcement safe harbor do not create standing or ripeness issues. On April 24, 2013, the Court stayed all proceedings pending completion of the government’s rulemaking proceedings. On July 25, 2013, the Court entered an Order relative to a joint briefing schedule submitted by the parties and whereby Plaintiffs will amend their complaint by August 14, 2013, file their motion for a preliminary injunction by September 25, 2013, and all other dispositive motions will be fully briefed and submitted by October 30, 2013.
THIRD CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: Three cases have been appealed to the Circuit.
On January 14, 2013, a for-profit employer filed an appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit then denied an injunction pending appeal over a masterful dissent. On July 26, 2013, the Third Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court denying an injunction to Appellants, finding that a for-profit, secular corporation could not assert a claim nor engage in religious exercise under the Free Exercise Clause; and thus could not assert a RFRA claim; and that shareholders likely did not have a viable claim that implementation of women's preventive healthcare regulations under PPACA violated their right to free exercise of religion. Again, Judge Jordan entered a considerable dissent. On July 31, 2013, Appellants filed a Petition for En Banc Review and were denied on August 14, 2013. Appellants have filed a motion to stay the mandate pending the filing of a cert petition with the Supreme Court.
An appeal was docketed in the Third Circuit for a non-profit religious organization on January 23, 2013, but later dismissed on July 23, 2013.
On June 17, 2013, the government filed an appeal of a decision granting a preliminary injunction to Wayne Hepler, Carrie E. Kolesar, and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc. in Geneva College v. Sebelius and requested the Court hold its appeal in abeyance pending the Court's decision in Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius; on July 9, 2013 the Court referred Appellant’s motion and Appellee’s response to a motions panel.
District Courts: Four cases have been filed with decisions rendered in all four.
On February 21, 2012, a private, nonprofit college, two for-profit entities, and individual owners of those entities filed an action against the Mandate in the Western District of Pennsylvania. In an Order dated March 6, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Government’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On May 8, 2013, upon a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Geneva College, the Court found Geneva's claims ripe and Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied in part for the same reasons set forth in the previous March 6 opinion with respect to the other Plaintiffs. The motion to dismiss was denied with respect to Geneva's Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, its Free Exercise Clause claim and its notice and comment claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. On April 19, 2013, the Court granted preliminary injunction in favor of Wayne Hepler, Carrie E. Kolesar, and The Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc. holding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on merits of their claim, that ACA's requirements substantially burdened their free exercise of religion, in violation of RFRA, that they would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, that the government would suffer little, if any, harm if injunctive relief was granted, since it had acquiesced to the imposition of injunctive relief in other similar cases, and the public interest would benefit by injunction. On June 17, 2013, the government filed a Notice of Appeal as to this Order. On June 18, 2013, the District Court granted Geneva College’s May 22, 2013 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, on the same basis as their April 19, 2013 Order in favor of the other Plaintiffs.
In the Western District of Pennsylvania, a Complaint was filed on May 21, 2012 and the court granted the government’s motion to dismiss the claims of the Archbishop of the Diocese, the Diocese, Catholic Charities, and the Catholic Cemeteries Association finding the action not ripe for judicial review, and that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an injury in fact to satisfy their burden to establish standing The court ruled that the ANPRM and temporary enforcement safe harbor meant that the Catholic entities lacked standing and their claims were not ripe.
In another Roman Catholic case brought on May 21, 2012 before the Western District of Pennsylvania, the diocese of Erie, its bishop and trustee, and affiliated employers brought an action against the Mandate. The Court held that the declaratory judgment action was not ripe for adjudication and dismissed the same on January 22, 2013.
On December 4, 2012, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a for-profit employer filed a complaint and was initially granted a temporary restraining order on December 28, 2012 but on January 11, 2013, were denied preliminary injunctive relief. The Court held that the right of free exercise of religion is unavailable to a secular, for-profit corporation; an employer could not act as an owners' alter ego to assert owners' rights to free exercise of religion in challenging regulations; regulations did not offend Free Exercise Clause or substantially burden owners’ religious exercise; an employer could not “exercise religion” within meaning of RFRA; exemption regarding women's contraception applicable to religious employers under regulations did not violate Establishment Clause; and plaintiffs did not show likelihood of success on the merits of claim that regulations compelled speech with which plaintiffs disagreed.
FOURTH CIRCUIT
Supreme Court: On November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012). Appellants have indicated that they intend to file another petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in light of the most recent ruling by the Fourth Circuit.
Court of Appeals: One case has been appealed to the Circuit.
On September 8, 2011, the Fourth Circuit found that an action against the Mandate brought by a Christian University constituted a pre-enforcement action seeking to restrain the assessment of a tax, the Anti-Injunction Act strips the Court of jurisdiction as a result of AIA’s bar to the “intrusion of the injunctive power of the courts into the administration of the revenue.” The Court vacated the November 30, 2010 judgment of the district court and remanded the case to that court to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. After consideration of remand for further proceedings from the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court on July 11, 2013. Initially on August 6, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued a stay of its Mandate until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a petition for cert to be filed on behalf of Liberty University and two private individuals, but on August 7, 2013, the court reversed itself and issued another order denying the stay. Liberty University’s case does not challenge the HHS Mandate in particular, as it pre-dates the Mandate, but it is the most comprehensive case pending, challenging (1) the employer mandate; (2) the abortion mandate for religious employers; (3) the abortion mandate for individuals; and (4) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House. In the cert petition due in early October, 2013, Liberty Counsel has indicated it will argue that the employer mandate violates the Commerce Clause as Congress lacks authority to force individuals to buy an unwanted product, so Congress cannot force employers to buy an unwanted product. In addition, unlike the individual mandate, which the High Court ruled was a tax, Liberty Counsel will also argue the employer mandate exceeds Congress’s taxing powers because the penalties go beyond reasonable taxing limits and are punitive. The case also challenges the employer and individual mandate provisions as violations of religious free exercise because they force employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs and many individuals to fund abortion.
District Courts: Two cases have been filed with one decision reached.
On March 23, 2010, Liberty University brought an action in the Western District of Virginia. As part of the action, Plaintiffs alleged that the employer and individual coverage provisions are beyond Congress’ Article I powers, violate the Tenth Amendment, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. On November 30, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, finding the individual and employer coverage requirement a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. The Court further dismissed the RFRA claim and found the free exercise claim not plausible. Plaintiffs appealed on December 1, 2010. On November 7, 2011, in accordance with the mandate issued by the Fourth Circuit, the District Court vacated its November 30, 2010 order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
On June 24, 2013, a Christian owned car dealership filed a Complaint against the Mandate and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia which was withdrawn on July 22, 2013. An Amended Complaint was filed July 26, 2013 and Motion to Dismiss by Defendants on August 23, 2013.
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: No case has reached the court of appeals.
District Courts: Seven cases have been filed.
A Baptist college filed a Complaint on February 18, 2012 in the Western District of Louisiana. The case was stayed on January 4, 2013 until August 15, 2013, at which time the government was ordered to provide the Court with a status report as to the regulations and other relevant pending litigation.
On May 21, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Dallas filed a case in the Northern District of Texas and on February 26, 2013, the Court found that although the Plaintiff had standing to bring the suit, the issues raised in the Complaint were not ripe for review and thus dismissed the same.
In another case pending before the Northern District of Texas which was also filed on May 21, 2012, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss on January 31, 2013. The court ruled that the HHS Mandate was a final rule and that the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth was injured, and the case was ripe, because the diocese needed to plan how it would either provide the required coverage or structure a reorganization in order to qualify for the religious exemption. The Court denied the governments motion to dismiss as well as their motion for reconsideration and motion to file for immediate appeal. On August 22, 2013, Plaintiffs amended their complaint and added additional parties.
On May 21, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Biloxi and other Catholic nonprofits and schools filed in the Southern District of Mississippi. In contrast to the Northern District of Texas, the Southern District of Mississippi granted the government’s motion to dismiss on December 20, 2012. The court ruled that the challenges of the Diocese of Biloxi and other Catholic organizations, all of whom had grandfathered plans, were not ripe because the Mandate was likely to be amended.
A case involving two Baptist colleges was filed on October 9, 2012 in the Southern District of Texas and was stayed on December 20, 2012. That stay was lifted on July 31, 2013 and proceedings have resumed. On March 8, 2013 Westminster Theological Seminary moved to intervene in the case, which motion was opposed. The Court granted that Motion on August 30, 2013.
Finally, on November 1, 2012, a Christian College and Divinity School filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Texas. The Court dismissed its claims on April 9, 2013, finding the case not ripe for judicial consideration.
On February 20, 2013, an action was filed against the mandate in the Northern District of Mississippi by the American Family Association and then voluntarily dismissed on July 19, 2013.
SIXTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: Seven appeals have been filed in six cases to the Sixth Circuit.
The Catholic Diocese of Nashville filed a Notice of Appeal on December 19, 2012 and voluntarily dismissed the same on February 28, 2013.
A Notice of Appeal was filed on December 26, 2012 on behalf of a for-profit family owned business after being denied a Preliminary Injunction in the District Court. Following briefing, oral arguments were held on June 11, 2013. No decision has been issued.
In Legatus v. Sebelius, a Notice of Appeal was filed by the government and a cross appeal was docketed on behalf of Legatus on January 24, 2013. After being fully briefed on or around May 28, 2013, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed on the part of Legatus on August 14, 2013. The government’s appeal of the injunction granted to Weingartz remains pending and oral argument is scheduled for October 9, 2013.
The government appealed the District Court’s grant of Preliminary Injunction to Dominos Farms on May 13, 2013. Briefing is set to be complete by mid-September.
Eden Foods filed a Notice of Appeal on May 21, 2013; briefing is completed and oral argument has been set for October 2, 2013.
A Notice of Appeal was filed on July 11, 2013 on behalf of Mersino Management Co. following the denial of their Motion for TRO and PI. On July 17, 2013, Mersin filed a Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal and to expedite the briefing schedule.
District Courts: Eleven cases have been filed.
On May 7, 2012, a Catholic owned for profit company and affiliated Catholic non profit filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan. On October 31, 2012, the Court ruled in favor of the grant of a preliminary injunction on behalf of the secular, for-profit family owned business, holding that it could exercise standing in order to assert the free exercise rights of its president; the Court denied the motion for Preliminary Injunction on behalf of a nonprofit organization affiliated with the company and owner, Legatus. On January 14, 2013, a Notice of Appeal was filed by the Defendants and Legatus.
On May 21, 2012, a Catholic college and non-profits filed an action in the Southern District of Ohio. On August 6, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and on October 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. On March 22, 2013, the Court granted the governments Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 12, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Nashville as well as a Catholic charity and schools filed a Complaint against the Mandate in the Middle District of Tennessee.The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on November 27, 2012 and the Catholic Diocese of Nashville filed a Notice of Appeal on December 19, 2012.
On October 8, 2012, a for-profit filed an action in the Western District of Michigan and on December 24, 2012, the Court denied their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. A Notice of Appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals and a Motion to Stay Proceedings in the District Court was denied.
In another case before the Eastern District of Michigan, Dominos Farms Corporation filed a Complaint on December 14, 2012 and on March 14, 2013 was granted a Preliminary Injunction. The government appealed this decision on May 13, 2013 and the proceedings in the District Court have been stayed.
On January 10, 2013, a Catholic owned dredging company, Infrastructure Alternatives filed a Complaint in US District Court for the Western District of Michigan. On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order that pending the anticipated decision in Autocam v. Sebelius from the Sixth Circuit, the Court does not intend to issue a Case Management Order with pretrial disclosure and discovery deadlines.
A natural foods company filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan on March 20, 2013 and was denied a preliminary injunction on May 21, 2013, with a Notice of Appeal filed the same day.
Mersino Management Company filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan on March 22, 2013 and was denied a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on July 11, 2013 and a Notice of Appeal was filed on the same day.
On March 28, 2013, a Catholic owned supplier of specialty machining, MK Chambers, filed a Complaint against the HHS Mandate. On April 3, 2013, the Court denied their Motion for TRO. On April 26, 2013, Plaintifffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On June 6, 2013, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss which is under advisement. On July 24, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On May 8, 2013, a Catholic and Christian owned business that supplies custom injection molding products, filed an action in US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the mandate. On May 24, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice.
On June 7, 2013, a Catholic owned agricultural/industrial construction company filed an action in US District Court for the District of Minnesota. On July 8, 2013, a Preliminary Injunction was granted until thirty days after the mandate issues from the Eighth Circuit in O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. or Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius,
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: Four cases have been appealed to the Seventh Circuit, with an injunction pending appeal granted in two, a stay granted in the other and a joint dismissal filed in the fourth.
On December 17, 2012 and January 9, 2013, Korte and Grote, respectively, filed an Appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction. An injunction pending appeal was granted by the Circuit Court in Korte on December 28, 2012 and in Grote on January 30, 2013. Both Korte and Grote have been fully briefed and oral arguments were heard on May 22, 2013; the cases are under advisement by the panel.
On March 5, 2013, the government appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction to Triune and on March 14, 2013, the Court granted the government’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the Court's Decision in Korte v. Sebelius.
On March 1, 2013, Notre Dame appealed the dismissal of their action in District Court and denial of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On July 25, 2013, Appellants and Appellees filed a joint motion to dismiss the case without prejudice which was granted on July 26, 2013.
District Courts: Twelve cases have been filed in the Seventh Circuit.
On May 21, 2012, Notre Dame filed a Complaint against the Mandate in the Northern District of Indiana. On December 31, 2012, the Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss on basis of ripeness and standing and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs appealed.\
On May 21, 2012, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet, Springfield, Chicago as well as Catholic nonprofits filed an action in the Northern District of Illinois against the Mandate. On August 6, 2012, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and on February 8, 2013, the Court granted the governments motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On May 21, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend as well as Catholic non-profits filed an action against the Mandate. On August 6, 2013, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On May 13, 2013, the case was stayed until Defendants finalize their proposed rules or until July 1, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the Court lifted the stay and adopted a pretrial schedule.
On August 9, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Peoria filed a Complaint in the Central District of Illinois. The government filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 19, 2012 and on January 3, 2013, the Court granted the same, dismissing the action without prejudice as premature. The Court found that if the Plaintiffs’ concerns were not resolved to its satisfaction through the amendment process, they will have the opportunity to challenge the amended regulations when the alleged harm is not contingent on future events and is less speculative.
On August 22, 2012, in the Northern District of Illinois a Catholic owned corporation that specializes in facilitating the re-entry of injured workers into the workforce and its owner filed an action against the Mandate and were granted a Preliminary Injunction on January 3, 2013.
On August 23, 2012, Christian colleges, Grace Schools and Biola University, filed a Complaint against the Mandate in the Northern District of Indiana. On July 31, 2013, a stay was lifted and a pretrial schedule set.
On September 20, 2012, a building construction company wholly owned by Franciscan Holding Corporation and Francsican Alliance, a non-profit health system with 13 hospitals in Indiana and Illinois, brought an action against the Mandate. On April 1, 2013, the Court granted a Preliminary Injunction to the Company. On August 16, 2013, the Court stayed the proceedings until thirty (30) days after the Seventh Circuit has issued an opinion on the consolidated Grote and Korte appeal. A for-profit corporation filed an action on October 9, 2012 against the HHS Mandate and was denied a preliminary injunction on December 14, 2012.
Another for-profit corporation filed an action on October 29, 2012 against the HHS Mandate and was denied a preliminary injunction on December 27, 2012. The Court held that the preventive services coverage mandate did not place a “substantial burden” on plaintiffs within meaning of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that there was a substantial likelihood that the preventive services coverage mandate was a neutral law of general applicability that did not offend the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause; and there was a substantial likelihood that religious employer exemption did not violate Establishment Clause.
A Catholic owned law firm, Lindsay, Rappaport and Postel, filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on February 14, 2013. On March 20, 2013, the Court entered an Agreed Preliminary Injunction pending the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the consolidated appeals of Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 and Grote v. Sebelius, No. 13-077.
In another case brought before the Northern District of Illinois on March 26, 2013, a Catholic family-owned business that manufactures wire harnesses, battery cables and electrical components as well as cable television and internet provider brought an action against the Mandate. On April 18, 2013, the Court entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the mandate until 30 days after the mandate issues from the Seventh Circuit in Korte v. Sebelius and Grote v. Sebelius.
On May 1, 2013, a Chicago based Concrete company and its owners who are faithful adherents of the Christian faith filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Illinois. On July 16, 2013, the Court granted a Preliminary Injunction to Plaintiffs and on August 14, 2013 the Court stayed the proceedings until the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Korte and Grote.
EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: Four cases have been appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On September 14, 2012, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal in Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. The case was fully briefed by February, 2012 and on August 8, 2013, Appellants moved to dismiss the same, without prejudice to any rights they possess regarding the subject matter of the underlying litigation, including but not limited to, the right of Appellants to bring a subsequent challenge to the Final Rules promulgated by 78 Fed. Reg. 39,870 (Jul. 2, 2013).
On October 1, 2012, O’Brien filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal of its action by the District Court. On November 28, 2012, Appellants motion for stay pending appeal was granted. The case has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument.
On January 11, 2013, Annex Medical filed a Notice of Appeal following the denial of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction in district court. On January 17, 2013, Annex Medical’s motion for injunction pending appeal before the District Court was denied. However, on February 1, 2013, the Eighth Circuit granted Appellants an Injunction Pending Appeal. The case was fully briefed as of April, 2013 and is awaiting a ruling.
On February 19, 2013, the government appealed the grant of a preliminary injunction to American Pulverizer and its owners. On February 26, 2013, the case was held in abeyance following a motion for the same filed by the government.
District Courts: Eleven cases have been filed.
On March 15, 2012, a Catholic owned company specializing in the exploration, mining and processing of refractory and ceramic raw materials and the manufacturing and distribution of refractory and insulatory products brought before an action against the Mandate in the Eastern District of Missouri. On September 28, 2012, the Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that the ACA regulations did not substantially burden plaintiffs' exercise of religion, under RFRA, the ACA regulations did not offend the Free Exercise Clause, the religious employer exemption to the ACA regulations did not violate the Establishment Clause, and the ACA regulations did not violate the Free Speech Clause. Plaintiff appealed this dismissal on October 1, 2012.
On May 21, 2012, the Archdiocese of Saint Louis filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Missouri. On January 29, 2013, the Court granted the governments motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 17, 2012, a Complaint was filed in the Western District of Missouri by a Protestant College. On January 16, 2013, the action was dismissed without prejudice by the Court on the Plaintiffs’ motion.
In another for-profit case filed in the Western District of Missouri a wholesale scrap metal recycling and the manufacturing company and its owners filed an action on October 19, 2012 and on December 20, 2012, the Court issued a preliminary injunction in its favor. On February 19, 2013, the government appealed this decision and the district court case has been stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
A medical supplier filed suit against the Mandate on November 2, 2012 and on January 8, 2013 its Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied. On January 11, 2013, Annex Medical filed its Notice of Appeal.
In the Eastern District of Missouri, a company that employs individuals in industries including farming, dairy, creamery, and cheese-making and a life insurance company filed an action against the Mandate on December 20, 2012 and on June 28, 2013, the Court granted a preliminary injunction.
In the Western District of Missouri Sioux Chief Mfg filed a Complaint on January 14, 2013. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Court granted the same on February 28, 2013 along with a stay of all proceedings pending the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Annex Medical, Inc. v. Kathleen Sebelius or O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services whichever comes first.
On February 5, 2013, a Catholic owned Company that manufactures and markets mining equipment, mud pumps and parts, for distribution worldwide filed a Complaint in the District of Minnesota. On April 2, 2013, the Court granted American Mfg. Co. a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the mandate until thirty days after the mandate issues from the Eighth Circuit in O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs or Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius whichever occurs first, All proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the appeal in either O’Brien or Annex Medical, whichever occurs first.
On March 13, 2013, a Catholic owned company filed a Complaint against the Mandate in the Eastern District of Missouri and on April 1, 2013, the Court enjoined enforcement of the Mandate until 30 days after the mandate issues from the Eighth Circuit in O’Brien v. HHS or Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius whichever occurs first. All proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the appeal in O’Brien or Annex Medical.
On July 2, 2013, a Christian owned Company that provides quality control services including inspection, engineering, training, and staffing across the Midwest filed an action in US District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Mandate. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on August 2, 2013.
On August 14, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of Missouri State Representative Paul Joseph Wieland and his wife, Teresa Jane Wieland. The Wielands are suing the federal government for violating their religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights by requiring them to subscribe to group insurance coverage for their family that includes abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and birth control. The case seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction to stop the infringement on the family’s civil rights by the legislature’s new health insurance program. The Wielands were notified in July of 2013 by the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan that, as of August 1, 2013, they would no longer be able to receive health coverage that is free of abortion-inducing drugs. Prior to this, the Wielands had specifically enrolled in a program that did not cover these items which he and his family consider objectionable.
NINTH CIRCUIT
No cases have been filed.
Court of Appeals:
District Courts:
TENTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: Three cases have been appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On September 25, 2012, the government filed a Notice of Appeal of the grant of a preliminary injunction to Newland by the US District Court for the District of Colorado. The matter has been submitted to the Court on the briefs.
On November 19, 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction. December 20, 2012, Hobby Lobby was denied an injunction pending appeal by the Tenth Circuit. They then made application to the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appellate review and were denied the same on December 26, 2012. Hobby Lobby then went on to appeal the denial of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction to the Tenth Circuit and the Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s denial of preliminary injunction, finding most significantly that corporations were “persons,” within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that corporations had protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause. The Court found that corporations satisfied the irreparable injury prong of test for preliminary injunctions and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining preliminary injunction factors.
On May 16, 2013, Armstrong filed an Appeal of the denial of Preliminary Injunction in the District Court of Colorado. Appellants have filed their brief on July 31, 2013, as well as a Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal on August 22, 2013.
District Courts: Six cases have been filed.
On February 23, 2012, several states, including Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma and Michigan as well as several Catholic non-profits filed a Complaint against the HHS mandate. On July 17, 2012, the governments motion to dismiss was granted and on September 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.
A for-profit corporation and its owners brought an action against the HHS mandate on April 30, 2012 and the District Court granted a preliminary injunction in their favor on July 27, 2012. The government appealed.
In another action, Hobby Lobby filed suit against HHS on September 12, 2012 and the Court denied their Motion for Preliminary Injunction on November 19, 2012, holding that corporations do not have protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause and were not “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. On remand from the Tenth Circuit, the District Court found that plaintiffs had met their burden on the two remaining preliminary injunction elements—equitable balancing and whether issuance of an injunction would be in the public interest and issued a preliminary injunction. Further proceedings were then stayed until October 1, 2013 and the government was directed to advise the court if, prior to that date, it determines it will not seek review of the Tenth Circuit's decision.
On January 8, 2013, the District Court of Colorado dismissed Colorado Christian University’s action against the mandate for lack of jurisdiction. On August 7, 2013, CCU re-filed its action against the Mandate in United States District Court for the District of Colorado, becoming the first non-profit organization to HYPERLINK "http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CCU.pdf" renew its lawsuit challenging the HHS abortion-drug mandate’s “accommodation,” and alleging that it forces the Christian university to violate its deeply held religious beliefs or pay crippling fines. Under the now-released regulations, organizations like CCU are excused from directly paying for abortion-causing drugs and devices only if they “designate” another organization to do the same thing they cannot do directly, remaining a central cog in the government’s scheme. CCU alleges that it is still forced to participate in the government’s scheme to provide free access to abortion-causing drugs and devices.
On February 4, 2013, a Christian owned company that manages and operates senior care assisted living centers and skilled nursing facilities filed an action against the mandate in US District Court for District of Colorado. On February 15, 2013, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction which was deferred pending a decision in Hobby Lobby. On February 19, 2013, the company filed a Motion for TRO which was denied on February 27, 2013. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On March 5, 2013, a Christian owned residential mortgage banking company and its owners filed an action against the Mandate and on March 18, 2013, the owners filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On May 10, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. A Notice of Appeal was filed May 16, 2013. On July 1, 2013, Plaintiffs moved for an order reversing the Court’s order of May 10, 2013, and granting a preliminary injunction as requested, in light of the en banc decision in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius. On August 19, 2013, the Court issued an order declining to consider the matter until Plaintiffs have filed a motion to suspend their appeal or Defendants have filed a similar motion in the Tenth Circuit or the Tenth Circuit remands the case to reconsider in light of Hobby Lobby.
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals: One case has been appealed.
On August 22, 2013, the government filed a Notice of Appeal of the grant of Preliminary Injunction to Beckwith Electric and the Court stayed the proceedings pending the appeal.
District Courts: Five cases have been filed.
On February 9, 2012 a complaint was filed in the Northern District of Alabama by the largest Catholic Television Network founded by Mother Angelica, a cloistered Nun. On HYPERLINK "http://www.becketfund.org/alabama-joins-becket-fund%E2%80%99s-fight-against-unconstitutional-hhs-mandate/" March 22, 2012, the state of Alabama joined the lawsuit on behalf of EWTN, defending their citizens’ rights from offering products against their religious beliefs. On May 4, 2012, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the Court granted the same on March 25, 2013.
A Catholic University brought an action in the Middle District of Florida on February 21, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss and on March 29, 2013, the Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. On August 29, 2013, Ave Maria University re-filed their Complaint against the Mandate in the Middle District of Florida in light of the final rules issued on June 28, 2013.
On October 5, 2012, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Atlanta filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Georgia. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 31, 2012. The government filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 14, 2013 and later withdrew the same. On August 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
On October 19, 2012, the Archdiocese of Miami along with several Catholic non-profits brought an action in the Southern District of Florida. On December 21, 2012, the government filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On March 4, 2013, the Court granted the governments Motion to Dismiss.
In the Middle District of Florida, Beckwith Electric Co., an evangelical-owned electric company filed suit against the Mandate on March 12, 2013 and secured a Preliminary Injunction on June 25, 2013.
This memorandum is intended as a helpful tool for tracking the current landscape of court decisions regarding the religious liberty challenges to the HHS Mandate. While the intention is to keep the information current, decisions are proceeding at a pace that makes it likely that some information is outdated. This memorandum is not intended to be, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice, including tax or insurance advice. For any specific questions regarding compliance with the HHS Mandate, individuals, organizations, or corporations should consult their attorney with their specific questions. Please notify CLS if any information in this memorandum is incorrect by sending an email to kcolby@clsnet.org.
Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v Sebelius, 2012 WL 5817323 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2012) (Walton, J.)., appeal docketed, No. 13-5018 (D.C.Cir., Jan. 15, 2013); Gilardi v. Sebelius, 926 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D.D.C. 2013); Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, 13-5091, 2013 WL 3357814 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2013).
Wheaton College v. Sebelius, No. 12-5273 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2012).
Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Sebelius, No. 12-5291 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 14, 2012).
Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6652505 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 2012) (per curiam) (panel of Judges Garland, Randolph, and Griffith).
Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius and Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Sebelius, Nos. 12-5273 and 12-5291 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2013).
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v Sebelius, 2012 WL 5817323 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2012) (Walton, J.)., appeal docketed, No. 13-5018 (D.C.Cir., Jan. 15, 2013).
Francis A. Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir. March, 29, 2013).
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, 13-5091, 2013 WL 3357814 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2013).
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, 13-5091, 2013 WL 3357814 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 887 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2012) (Huvelle, J.,), appeal held in abeyance, 703 F.3d 551 (D.C., Dec. 18, 2012) (per curiam) (panel of Judges Garland, Randolph, and Griffith).
Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C., July 18, 2012) (Boasberg, J.),appeal held in abeyance Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551 (D.C., Dec. 18, 2012) (per curiam) (panel of Judges Garland, Randolph, and Griffith).
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, CIV.A. 12-0815 ABJ, 2013 WL 285599 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2013) appeal held in abeyance, 13-5091, 2013 WL 3357814 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2013).
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v Sebelius, 904 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2012) (Walton, J.)., appeal docketed, No. 13-5018 (D.C.Cir., Jan. 15, 2013).
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.
Id. at *18, citing O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao de Vegetal v. Gonzales, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 904 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2012) appeal dismissed, No. 13-5018, 2013 WL 2395168 (D.C. Cir. May 3, 2013).
Francis A. Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-CV-00104-EGS (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2013).
Johnson Welded Products, Inc. v. Sebelius et al., No. 13-CV-00609-ESH (D.D.C. May 24, 2013).
Willis and Willis PLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-01124-CKK (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2013).
Trijicon v. HHS, No. 13-CV-01207-EGS (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2013).
Priests for Life v. Sebelius, 12-CV-753 FB, 2013 WL 1563390 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2013).
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius, 12-CV-02542 BMC, 907 F. Supp. 2d 310, 336 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13-1144, 2013 WL 3845365 (3d Cir. July 26, 2013); Zubik v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5932977 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 27, 2012) (McVerry, J.), appeal dismissed, No. 13-1228 (3d Cir. July 23, 2013); Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 2:12-CV-00207, 2013 WL 838238 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2013) appeal docketed No. 13-2814 (3d Cir. June 17, 2013).
Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius, 917 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D. Pa. 2013) aff'd sub nom. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13-1144, 2013 WL 3845365 (3d Cir. July 26, 2013).
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13-1144, 2013 WL 3845365 (3d Cir. July 26, 2013).
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2013 WL 3845365 petition for en banc review No. 13-1144, (3d Cir. July 31, 2013).
Zubik v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5932977 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 27, 2012) (McVerry, J.), appeal dismissed, No. 13-1228 (3d Cir. July 23, 2013).
Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 2:12-CV-00207, 2013 WL 838238 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2013) appeal docketed No. 13-2814 (3d Cir. June 17, 2013).
Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 2:12-CV-00207, 2013 WL 838238 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2013)..
Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 2:12-CV-00207, 2013 WL 1703871 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2013) appeal docketed No. 13-2814 (3d Cir. June 17, 2013).
Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 2:12-CV-00207, 2013 WL 3071481 (W.D. Pa. June 18, 2013).
Zubik v. Sebelius, 911 F. Supp. 2d 314 (W.D. Pa. 2012).
This decision predates the excellent opinion in Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. Sebelius, supra, in the Eastern District of New York, as well as the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in which Becket Fund filed an excellent brief explaining why the district courts misunderstood “standing” doctrine and should not have dismissed on that basis.
Persico v. Sebelius, 919 F. Supp. 2d 622 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
Conestoga Wood Specialities Corp. v. Sebelius, 917 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D. Pa. 2013) aff'd sub nom. Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 13-1144, 2013 WL 3845365 (3d Cir. July 26, 2013).
Liberty Univ. v. Geithner, 133 S. Ct. 679 (2012).
Liberty University v. Geithner, 671 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2011).
Liberty University v. Geithner, 671 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2011).
Liberty University v. Lew (formerly Liberty University v. Geithner), No. 10-2347 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2013).
Liberty University v. Geithner, No. 10-CV-00015-NKM (W.D. Va. 2010).
Holland v. HHS, No. 13-CV-15487 (S.D. W. Va. June 24, 2013).
Louisiana College v. Sebelius, No. 12-463 (D. La. January 4, 2013) (Drell, J.).
Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas v. Sebelius, No. 3:12-1589 (N.D. Tex. February 26, 2013) (Boyle, J.).
Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, No. 4:12-CV-314-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013) (Means, J.).
Catholic Diocese of Biloxi v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6831407 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2012) (Ozerden, J.).
East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University, No. 4:12-03009 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2012) (Rosenthal, J.).
Criswell College v. Sebelius, No. 3:12-4409 (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2013) (Godbey, J.).
American Family Association, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1:13-00032 (N.D. Miss. July 13, 2013)(Aycock, J.).
Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 1:12-CV-1096, 2012 WL 6845677 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2012) ( ), appeal docketed, No. 12-2673 (6th Cir. 2012); Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5879796 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012), appeal docketed, No. 12-6590 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2012); Legatus/Weingartz v. Sebelius, 901 F. Supp. 2d 980 (E.D. Mich. 2012)appeal docketed, Nos. 13-1092, 13-1093 (6th Cir. 2012); Monaghan v. Sebelius, 12-15488, 2013 WL 1014026 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2013) appeal docketed, Nos. 13-1654 (6th Cir. May 13, 2013); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius, CIV.A. 13-11229, 2013 WL 1190001 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2013) appeal docketed, Nos. 13-1677 (6th Cir. May 21, 2013); Mersino Mgmt. Co. v. Sebelius, 13-CV-11296, 2013 WL 3546702 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2013), appeal docketed, No. 13-1944 (6th Cir. July 11, 2013).
Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5879796 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012), appeal docketed, No. 12-6590 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2012).
Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6845677 ( ), appeal docketed, No. 12-2673 (6th Cir. 2012)
Legatus v. Sebelius, 2012 WL No. 13-1093 (6th Cir. August 1, 2012).
Weingartz v. Sebelius, 2012 WL (), appeal docketed, Nos. 13-1092 (6th Cir. 2013).
Dominos Farms Corporation v. Sebelius, No. 13-1654 (6th Cir. May 13, 2013).
Eden Foods v. Sebelius, No. 13-1677 (6th Cir. May 21, 2013).
Mersino Management v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-1944 (6th Cir. July 11, 2013).
Legatus v. Sebelius, 901 F. Supp. 2d 980 (E.D. Mich. 2012) appeal docketed, Nos. 13-1092,13-1093 (6th Cir. 2013).
Franciscan University of Steubenville v. Sebelius, No. 12 CV 00440-ALM (S.D. Oh.).
Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5879796 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012), appeal docketed, No. 12-6590 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2012).
Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 12:CV-01096-RJJ (W.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2012) (Jonker, J.).
Dominos Farms Corporation v. Sebelius, No. 12-cv-15488-LPZ (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2013).
Infrastructure Alternatives v. Sebelius, 3-CV-00031-RJJ (W.D. Mich. May 8, 2013).
Eden Foods v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-11229-DPH (E.D. Mich. May 21, 2013) appeal docketed No. 13-1677 (6th Cir. May 21, 2013).
Mersino Management v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-CV-11296 (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2013).
MK Chambers v. HHS, 13-CV-11379-DPH (E.D. Mich. July 24, 2013).
M&N Plastics v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-12036-VAR (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2013).
SMA, LLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-01375-ADM (D. Minn. July 8, 2013).
Korte v. Sebelius, 12-3841, 2012 WL 6757353 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2012) ;
Grote v. Sebelius, 708 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2013) (consolidated with Korte for oral arg.); Triune Health Group v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-1478 appeal docketed (7th Cir. March 5, 2013); Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 3:12CV253RLM, 2012 WL 6756332 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012) appeal docketed No. 13-1479 (7th Cir. July 26, 2013).
Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir. 2012) and Grote Indus., LLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-1077 (7th Cir. 2013).
Triune Health Group v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-1478 appeal docketed (7th Cir. March 5, 2013).
University of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-1479 (7th Cir. July 26, 2013).
University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6756332 (N.D. Ind., Dec. 31, 2012).
Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet, Illinois v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-CV-03932, (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2013)
Catholic Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-00159-JD (N.D. Ind. May 21, 2013).
Catholic Diocese of Peoria v. Sebelius No. 1:12-CV-01276-JES (C.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2013)
Triune Health Group v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 12-CV-06756 (N.D. Ill. January 3, 2013).
Grace Schools v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-459 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 23, 2012).
Tonn & Blank Construction, LLC v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-00325-JD (ND IN, Aug. 16, 2013),
Korte v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 912 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Ill. 2012).
Grote Indus., LLC v. Sebelius, 914 F. Supp. 2d 943 (S.D. Ind. 2012) reconsideration denied, 4:12-CV-00134-SEB, 2013 WL 53736 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 3, 2013)
Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13CV1210 (N.D. Ill. March 20, 2013).
Hart Electric LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-CV-02253 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2013).
Martin Ozinga, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-CV-3292 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2013).
Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 877 F. Supp. 2d 777 (D. Neb. 2012)
, appeal docketed, No. 12-3238 (8th Cir. Sept. 14, 2012);
O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2012), appeal docketed, No. 12-3357 (8th Cir. 2012);
Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, CIV. 12-2804 DSD/SER, 2013 WL 101927 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2013)
, appeal docketed, No. 13-1118 (8th Cir. 2013); Am. Pulverizer Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 12-3459-CV-S-RED, 2012 WL 6951316 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2012) appeal docketed, No. 13-1395 (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013).
Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 12-3238 (8th Cir. 2012).
O’Brien v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs., No. 12-3357 (8th Cir. 2012).
Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, CIV. 12-2804 DSD/SER, 2013 WL 203526 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2013).
Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, 2013 WL 1276025 (8th Cir. Minn. Feb 01, 2013).
Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 13-1118 (8th Cir. 2013).
American Pulverizer Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs, No. 13-1395 appeal docketed (8th Cir. Feb. 19, 2013).
O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2012).
O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1149 appeal docketed, No. 12-3357 (8th Cir. 2012).
Archdiocese of Saint Louis v. Sebelius No. 12-CV-00924-JAR (E.D. Mo. January 29, 2013).
College of the Ozarks v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-03428-BCW (W.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2013).
American Pulverizer Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. No. 12-CV-03459-RED (W.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2012).
Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, CIV. 12-2804 DSD/SER, 2013 WL 101927 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2013).
Sharpe Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., No. 2:12-cv-00092-DDN (E.D. Mo. June 28, 2013).
Sioux Chief Mfg. Co.v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-0036-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2013).
American Mfg. Co. v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-0295 (D.Minn. Apr. 2, 2013).
Bick Holding, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-00462-AGF (E.D. Mo. Apr. 1, 2013).
QC Group v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-01726 (D. Minn. July 2, 2013).
Wieland v. HHS, No. 4:13-CV-01577, (ED Mo. Aug. 14, 2013).
Newland v. Sebelius, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Colo. 2012) , appeal docketed, No. 12-1380 (10th Cir. 2012); Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012) rev'd and remanded, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013)appeal docketed, No. 12-6294 (10th Cir. 2012); Armstrong v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-00563-RBJ, 2013 WL 4012713 (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2013) appeal docketed No. 13-1218 (10th Cir. May 16, 2013).
Newland v. Sebelius, 2012 WL (), appeal docketed, No. 12-1380 (10th Cir. 2012);
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 12-6294, 2012 WL 6930302 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2012).
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 133 S. Ct. 641, 643, 184 L. Ed. 2d 448 (2012).
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 12-6294, 2013 WL 3216103 (10th Cir. June 27, 2013).
Armstrong v. HHS, No. 13-1218 (10th Cir. May 16, 2013).
Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 877 F. Supp. 2d 777 (D. Neb. 2012).
Newland v. Sebelius, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (D. Colo. 2012).
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012) rev'd and remanded, 12-6294, 2013 WL 3216103 (10th Cir. June 27, 2013).
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, CIV-12-1000-HE, 2013 WL 3869832 (W.D. Okla. July 19, 2013)
Colorado Christian University v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs, No. 11-CV-03350-CMA case dismissed (D.C. Col. Jan. 8, 2013).
Colorado Christian University v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs, No. 13-CV-02105-REB (D.C. Col. Aug. 7, 2013).
Briscoe v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-00285-WYD (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013).
Armstrong v. HHS, No. 13-CV-00563 (D.C. Col. May 10, 2013).
Beckwith Elec. Co., Inc. v. Sebelius, 8:13-CV-0648-T-17MAP, 2013 WL 3297498 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2013)
appeal docketed, No. 13-13879 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2013).
Beckwith Electric Co. v. Sebelius, No. 13-13879, (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2013).
Eternal Word Television Network v. Sebelius, No.12-CV-00501-SLB (N.D. Al. Mar 25, 2013).
Ave Maria v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-00088-UA (M.D. Fl. Mar 29, 2013).
Ave Maria v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-00630-JES (M.D. Fl. Aug. 29, 2013).
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-3489-WSD (N.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2012).
Diocese of Miami v. Sebelius, No. 12-CV-23820-DLG (S.D. Fl. ).
Beckwith Electric Co. v. Sebelius, No. 13-CV-00648-EAK, injunction granted (M.D. FL. June 25, 2013).