Briscoe v. Sebelius
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26911
D. Colo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs seek a TRO to block AHCA contraceptive coverage mandate for Briscoe's for-profit companies.
- Briscoe owns several secular, for-profit entities that operate senior care facilities with >200 employees and self-insurance.
- AHCA requires no-cost preventive services for women; HRSA defined scope including contraception and sterilization.
- Plaintiffs argue exemptions under AHCA (grandfathered plans, religious exemptions, safe harbor) do not cover them.
- Briscoe’s self-insured plan to begin April 1, 2013; disclosures and plan changes required by early March 2013.
- Court addresses RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech challenges and DENIES TRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to raise RFRA claim | Briscoe entities exercise religion through owner | Secular corporations lack RFRA standing | Standing denied for RFRA claim |
| Substantial burden under RFRA | AHCA mandate substantially burdens Briscoe's religious exercise | Corporation's burden is attenuated; personal burden on Briscoe is not shown | No substantial burden on Briscoe's religion |
| Free Exercise Clause viability | AHCA exemptions not neutral or generally applicable | AHCA exemptions are neutral and generally applicable | AHCA mandate neutral and generally applicable; rational basis review applies |
| Establishment Clause violation | Religious employer exemption impermissibly scrutinizes religion | Exemption is broad and secular, not targeting religion | No Establishment Clause violation |
| Free Speech Clause violation | Mandate coerces speech contrary to beliefs | Conduct (plan provisions) is not speech protected by First Amendment | No Free Speech violation; conduct not protected speech |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012) (for-profit corporations lack RFRA standing; corporate status matters in RFRA analysis)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 917 F. Supp. 2d 394 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (reinforces corporate separate entity principle in RFRA context)
- Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643 (10th Cir. 2006) (neutral rules of general applicability need rational basis review when applicable)
- Schrier v. University of Colorado, 427 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2005) (injunctive relief standards; free exercise considerations)
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (Supreme Court 1990) (neutral laws of general applicability generally permissible under rational basis)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court 1993) (strict scrutiny for laws targeting religious conduct)
- United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2011) (RFRA burden-shifting framework and compelling interest test discussion)