Ave Maria Foundation v. Sebelius
991 F. Supp. 2d 957
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Five Catholic-affiliated nonprofit plaintiffs challenge HRSA Mandate requiring coverage of contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients under the ACA and related regulations.
- Plaintiffs are not religious employers and must either comply, self-certify for accommodation, or discontinue health plans, risking penalties.
- Accommodation allows self-certification, after which insurer must exclude contraceptive coverage but provide separate cost-free payments for covered services, creating indirect religious burdens.
- Plaintiffs’ plans are with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan; grandfathered status is unavailable due to changes in cost-sharing, so the mandate applies.
- The temporary safe harbor expired January 1, 2014; the court considers RFRA claims and whether preliminary relief is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does HRSA Mandate substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious exercise under RFRA? | Plaintiffs allege the self-certification and coverage changes impose a substantial burden on their religious beliefs. | The government contends the burden is not substantial or is sufficiently attenuated | Plaintiffs have a substantial burden on religious exercise |
| Is the government's interest in enforcing the HRSA Mandate compelling and is the mandate the least restrictive means? | The government cannot show the mandate is the least restrictive means to achieve public health and gender-equality goals given many exemptions. | The mandate serves compelling interests in public health and gender equality and is narrowly tailored via accommodations | The government has not shown the mandate is the least restrictive means; RFRA weighs in the plaintiffs' favor |
| Are the other factors (irreparable harm, public interest) satisfied to grant a preliminary injunction? | Without injunctive relief, plaintiffs face ongoing religious burdens and potential penalties; irreparable harm is present. | Administrative burden and public interest in universal health coverage weigh against an injunction | Injunction issued to enjoin enforcement pending further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2006) (RFRA framework; substantial burden standard from pre-Smith cases)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc; compelling interest and least restrictive means in RFRA context)
- Living Water Church of God v. Charter Township of Meridian, 258 F. App’x 734 (6th Cir. 2007) (substantial burden concept pre-Smith; RFRA framing)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (no right to object to government collection/uses; emphasizes scope of burden)
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. Sebelius, 987 F. Supp. 2d 234 (3d Cir. 2013) (RFRA compelled interest analysis and alternatives to accommodation)