East Texas Baptist University v. Sebelius
988 F. Supp. 2d 743
S.D. Tex.2013Background
- Plaintiffs: three religious nonprofit schools (East Texas Baptist Univ., Houston Baptist Univ., Westminster Theological Seminary) object to covering or facilitating access to certain FDA‑approved emergency contraceptives they believe are abortifacients.
- ACA/HRSA mandate requires group health plans to cover preventive services including contraceptives; HHS adopted an exemption for houses of worship and an "accommodation" for other nonprofit religious organizations requiring a self‑certification to insurer/TPA so the insurer/TPA will arrange no‑cost coverage for employees.
- Under the accommodation, eligible organizations must sign and provide a self‑certification to their issuer/TPA or face steep penalties for noncompliance; the form designates the issuer/TPA to provide contraceptive benefits and triggers notice to employees.
- Plaintiffs sued claiming RFRA and constitutional violations and moved for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment on RFRA grounds; government cross‑moved for summary judgment.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on their RFRA claim, concluded the accommodation places a substantial burden (compelled self‑certification) and is not the least restrictive means, and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the self‑certification requirement as to these plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the accommodation substantially burdens plaintiffs' religious exercise under RFRA | Self‑certification coerces plaintiffs, under threat of heavy fines, to perform an act that facilitates employees' access to abortifacients, making them complicit | The form is a minimal, procedural act; any objectionable conduct is done by third parties (insurers/TPAs), so burden is de minimis/too attenuated | Held: Substantial burden — the required self‑certification is an affirmative, compelled act plaintiffs find religiously offensive and is necessary to enable employee coverage |
| Whether the government can justify the burden under RFRA (compelling interest and least restrictive means) | Plaintiffs: government has not shown the accommodation is the least restrictive means; alternatives exist (government provision, third‑party arrangements, tax credits) | Government: ensuring widespread, no‑cost contraceptive access and public health/anti‑discrimination are compelling interests that justify the accommodation | Held: Government failed to show the accommodation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest; plaintiffs likely to prevail on RFRA claim |
| Standing (HBU) | HBU: must sign the form or face penalties; injury arises from compelled act itself regardless of TPA enforcement mechanics | Government: HBU’s church plan/TPA relationship means the government cannot enforce the mandate through its TPA, so HBU lacks injury | Held: HBU has Article III standing — the requirement to self‑certify or face penalties gives concrete injury-in-fact |
| Remedy — scope of relief requested (injunction/summary judgment) | Plaintiffs sought injunction and summary judgment on RFRA claim to prevent enforcement of self‑certification requirement against them | Government sought summary judgment dismissing RFRA claim | Held: Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on RFRA claim, denied government cross‑motion, enjoined enforcement of the self‑certification requirement as to these plaintiffs; constitutional claims dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (establishes compelled‑choice substantial‑burden framework preserved by RFRA)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (substantial, inescapable burden where law compels acts contrary to fundamental religious tenets)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (courts must accept claimant’s sincere belief about what conduct is religiously forbidden)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA requires strict scrutiny; government must show compelling interest and least restrictive means)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (RFRA analysis in the contraceptive‑mandate context)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013) (RFRA challenge to contraceptive mandate by closely held entity)
- Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (for‑profit RFRA/mandate analysis addressing attenuation arguments)
- Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2013) (analyzes least‑restrictive‑means alternatives and targeted RFRA inquiry)
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFRA substantial‑burden standard and reliance on Sherbert/Yoder)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (attenuation principle: no substantial burden where plaintiff need not modify his behavior and objectionable conduct is strictly the independent act of third parties)