801 F.3d 946
8th Cir.2015Background
- Dordt College and Cornerstone University are nonprofit religious colleges that provide employee health coverage (Dordt self‑insured; Cornerstone insured) and object to certain FDA‑approved contraceptives (e.g., ella, Plan B, copper IUD) as inconsistent with their religious beliefs.
- The ACA’s contraceptive mandate requires group health plans to cover all FDA‑approved contraceptives; exemptions exist for grandfathered plans and certain "religious employers," but not for these nonprofit religious organizations.
- The ACA regulations create an "accommodation" for qualifying religious nonprofits: the organization may self‑certify (EBSA Form 700 or HHS notice) and then the insurer or third‑party administrator (TPA) must provide or arrange contraceptive coverage to plan beneficiaries.
- Dordt and Cornerstone sued under RFRA, arguing the mandate and the accommodation process substantially burden their religious exercise by coercing them to facilitate objectionable coverage under threat of severe monetary penalties.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mandate and accommodation regulations against the colleges and against insurers/TPAs providing their plans; the government appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit, relying on its reasoning in Sharpe Holdings, affirmed the injunction, holding the mandate and accommodation likely impose a substantial burden and are likely not the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s asserted interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contraceptive mandate and accommodation substantially burden plaintiffs' religious exercise | The regulations coerce plaintiffs to provide or facilitate coverage contrary to beliefs, under threat of large penalties | The accommodation relieves organizations of direct involvement; insurers/TPAs provide coverage so there's no substantial burden | Held: Likely a substantial burden (court follows Sharpe Holdings reasoning) |
| Whether the government has a compelling interest in the mandate | Plaintiffs do not dispute general interests but argue exemptions undermine their force | Government asserts compelling interests in public health and equal access to contraception for women | Court assumed compelling interests but did not resolve them (relied on least‑restrictive‑means analysis) |
| Whether the mandate/accommodation are the least restrictive means to further the government's interest | Plaintiffs: accommodation still compels participation and there are less restrictive alternatives | Government: accommodation is narrowly tailored and necessary to ensure cost‑free access | Held: Likely not the least restrictive means (court affirms injunction on that basis) |
| Appropriateness of preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs: irreparable harm to religious exercise and balance favors injunction | Government: injunction improperly blocks application of federal rules and harms women’s access | Held: Preliminary injunction affirmed for Dordt and Cornerstone (and insurers/TPAs offering their plans) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA protection for closely held for‑profit entities and discussion of contraceptive mandate burden)
- Wheaton Coll. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014) (Supreme Court order addressing accommodation notice procedure)