769 F.3d 578
8th Cir.2014Background
- Annex Medical, a closely held for-profit Minnesota company with fewer than 50 full-time employees, sued to enjoin enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate under RFRA after its insurer’s group plan covered contraceptives.
- Stuart Lind, Annex’s controlling shareholder, objects on religious grounds to covering contraception and sterilization; Annex attempted to obtain a plan omitting such coverage but insurers refused.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction; this appeal challenges that denial. A prior temporary injunction pending appeal had been entered by this court but did not enable Annex to purchase a contraceptive‑free plan.
- The panel dismissed co‑plaintiff Tom Janas for lack of standing because he did not join the preliminary‑injunction motion and lacked a direct stake.
- The majority panel vacated the district court’s denial and remanded for further proceedings focused on Article III standing and causation: whether Annex’s inability to obtain a plan is caused by the government mandate and redressable by injunctive relief.
- Judge Colloton concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority’s standing rationale, arguing Annex has Article III standing and the denial should be revisited in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Tom Janas to appeal | Janas listed on appeal notice | He did not join PI motion and has no direct stake | Janas dismissed for lack of standing |
| Article III standing of Annex & Lind | Mandate causes unavailability of desired group plans; injury is redressable by injunction | Insurers’ independent decisions may cause unavailability; record lacks evidence insurers would sell a plan absent the mandate | Majority: remand to district court to resolve standing (causation and redressability) |
| RFRA right to exemption for closely held for‑profit | Lind/Annex assert RFRA protects their religious exercise and entitles them to injunctive relief (citing Hobby Lobby) | Government enforcement argument was considered below; record ambiguous on burden and causation | Colloton (concurring): Annex has standing and district court should reconsider PI denial in light of Hobby Lobby; majority did not reach RFRA merits |
| Proper procedural course for unresolved factual jurisdictional issues | Annex: proceed on pleadings; remedy is declaratory/injunctive relief | Government: standing requires factual showing insurers would have issued plans absent mandate | Majority: vacate and remand for district court fact‑finding under Rule 12(b)(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (RFRA can protect closely held for‑profit corporations' exercise of religion)
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four‑factor preliminary injunction framework)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (RFRA applies to federal government, not states)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements and pleading‑stage standards)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (injury must be traceable and redressable)