Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President United States
930 F.3d 543
3rd Cir.2019Background
- The ACA’s Women’s Health Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4)) required group health plans to cover HRSA-defined women’s preventive services, including contraceptive care.
- HHS (with Labor and Treasury) previously implemented a Church Exemption and an Accommodation (self-certification triggering third-party provision) after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- In 2017 the Agencies issued two interim final rules (Religious and Moral IFRs) without notice-and-comment, expanding exemptions to many employers and making the Accommodation voluntary; they later issued nearly identical Final Rules in 2018.
- Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued to enjoin the Final Rules; the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction and this appeal followed.
- The States produced evidence that loss of employer-provided contraceptive coverage would cause increased use of state-funded family-planning services and unintended-pregnancy costs, creating imminent financial injury to state coffers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | States will incur imminent, concrete financial injury from increased demand on state-funded contraceptive and pregnancy-care programs if exemptions take effect | No sufficiently concrete or imminent injury; plaintiffs failed to identify specific affected individuals | States have Article III standing: injury is concrete, imminent, traceable, and redressable by injunction |
| APA procedural rulemaking (notice-and-comment) | Agencies unlawfully promulgated IFRs without notice-and-comment and later finalized virtually identical rules; post-promulgation comments cannot cure defect | Statutory language and administrative circumstances justified IFRs and/or cured defects via later notice-and-comment | Agencies lacked good cause; IFR process violated APA and post-promulgation notice did not cure the procedural defect |
| Statutory authority under ACA | §300gg‑13(a) empowers HRSA to identify services but does not authorize exempting statutorily obligated actors from providing coverage | Agencies claim authority in HIPAA-related delegation language and regulatory discretion to issue IFRs | ACA does not authorize Agencies to create broad exemptions; Rules exceed statutory authority |
| RFRA justification for Religious Exemption | RFRA does not require a broad categorical exemption; Accommodation already provides less‑restrictive means and RFRA contemplates individualized judicial relief | Agencies contend RFRA permits/regulates relief for religious burdens and supports broader exemptions | RFRA does not compel the exemption; Agencies may not rely on RFRA to justify the Rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA analysis; accommodation is a less-restrictive alternative for some objectors)
- Wheaton Coll. v. Burwell, 573 U.S. 958 (2014) (allowing alternative notification procedure under accommodation)
- Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (remanding for parties to seek approaches to accommodate religious exercise while preserving contraceptive access)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 683 F.2d 752 (3d Cir. 1982) (post-promulgation notice cannot cure pre-promulgation APA defects)
- Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 652 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2011) (purposes of notice-and-comment and meaningful participation)
- Geneva Coll. v. Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 778 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2015) (accommodation does not impose substantial burden because coverage is provided by third parties)