Conlon v. Sebelius
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17407
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiffs, Catholic religious entities, challenge ACA contraception regulations as violating RFRA, First Amendment, and APA.
- Defendants enacted and enforce the ACA contraception coverage rules through HHS, DOL, and Treasury regulations.
- Plaintiffs allege the regulations force them to provide or facilitate contraception, abortion, or sterilization against their beliefs.
- The 2011 interim final rule created a temporary safe harbor for certain non-exempted religious organizations, delaying enforcement until after August 1, 2013.
- ANPRM announced intent to amend the final regulations before the safe harbor ends, suggesting forthcoming changes to accommodate religious objections.
- The court held that standing and ripeness were lacking, and granted dismissal without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs have standing to sue pre-enforcement | Plaintiffs face imminent planning-related harms. | Safe harbor and lack of imminent injury defeat standing. | Standing lacking; pre-enforcement injuries not certainly impending. |
| Whether the claims are ripe for review | Regulations are final and reviewable pre-enforcement. | Regulations are not final due to anticipated amendments. | Not ripe; anticipated amendments render review premature. |
| Whether pre-enforcement challenges are appropriate given anticipated regulatory changes | Amendments do not negate current harms. | Amendments forthcoming; current harms are uncertain. | Not appropriate to adjudicate; amendments justify dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 878 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C.2012) (standing and ripeness discussion in similar ACA challenge)
- Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 887 F.Supp.2d 102 (D.D.C.2012) (religious employer exemption context)
- 520 S. Michigan Ave. Associates, Ltd. v. Devine, 433 F.3d 961 (7th Cir.2006) (standing requires probability of harm, not immediate injury)
- Bauer v. Shepard, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir.2010) (pre-enforcement standing permitted where harm possible in future)
- National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Department of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (ripeness and finality of administrative decisions)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness and administrative decision review doctrine)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (standing thresholds and injury in fact)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing and injury in fact)