Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
1:13-cv-00521
S.D. Ala.Jun 17, 2014Background
- EWTN and Alabama sue to challenge the contraceptive-coverage mandate under the ACA as applied to religious nonprofits.
- The court previously accommodated EWTN by requiring a certification form to opt out, finding four counts failed as a matter of law.
- The current motion targets thirteen remaining claims and seeks dismissal or summary judgment, with EWTN moving under Rule 56(d).
- The court splits issues between constitutional challenges and APA challenges, and evaluates standing, mootness, and the accommodation’s legality.
- The court ultimately dismisses several counts for lack of viable theory or abandonment, and denies summary judgment on surviving counts.
- The order tolls the 56(d) motion as moot and grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI are meritless or abandoned. | EWTN argues the claims survive and merits discovery. | Defendants contend those counts are abandoned or lack merit. | Counts III, IV, VII, VIII, VI, X, XI are dismissed. |
| Whether Counts XII–XVI–XVII survive and whether summary judgment is appropriate. | EWTN argues APA claims and declaratory relief remain viable. | Defendants contend they should be dismissed or resolved in their favor on summary judgment. | Counts XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII survive; summary judgment denied on those counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard; plausibility required for relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (anti-pleading standard; not mere possibility)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine disputes require trial)
- O’Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (initial burden on movant in summary judgment)
- U.S. v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010) (pre-promulgation notice not cured by post-promulgation comments)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 595 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1979) (pre-promulgation deficiencies not cured by later actions)
- FAIR v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 547 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2006) (standing and injury-in-fact considerations in regulatory challenges)