Geneva College v. Sebelius
929 F. Supp. 2d 402
W.D. Pa.2013Background
- Geneva College challenges ACA preventive-care mandate as applied to contraceptives, sterilization, and related counseling; plaintiffs include Geneva, Hepler, SHLC, WLH, and Kolesar; court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss; issues involve standing, ripeness, RFRA/First Amendment claims, Establishment/Free Speech, and APA challenges; procedural posture involved prior briefing, hearings, and supplemental submissions.
- Geneva alleges its grandfathered health plan status is uncertain under HHS guidance and that exemptions are being interpreted unpredictably; SHLC/WLH and Hepler oppose coverage of objected-to services and seek relief under RFRA and First Amendment; the defendants are HHS, the Departments of Labor and Treasury, and named officials.
- Court analyzes whether Geneva has standing and whether its claims are ripe given ongoing rulemaking and safe harbors; court also assesses RFRA standing and substantial burden for Hepler entities; court addresses challenges under Establishment, Free Speech, and APA.
- Court ultimately: Geneva’s claims are not ripe as to Counts I–VI without prejudice; WLH dismissed as named plaintiff; RFRA/Free Exercise claims for Hepler entities survive; Establishment/Free Speech claims, and some APA claims, dismissed without prejudice or with prejudice as specified; overall disposition grants in part and denies in part.
- The court notes ongoing rulemaking and safe-harbor developments potentially moot or affect ripe issues; reconsideration granted regarding Geneva’s ripeness status in light of February 2013 proposed rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and ripeness for Geneva | Geneva argues injury-in-fact imminent due to plan-year planning costs and recruitment impacts. | Defendants contend safe harbor and ANPRM render injury non-imminent. | Geneva's claims not ripe; dismissed without prejudice. |
| RFRA standing for Hepler entities | SHLC/Hepler argue for standing to assert owners’ RFRA rights. | Defendants contend for-profit entities lack RFRA standing. | SHLC has RFRA standing to assert owners’ rights; WLH dismissed; Hepler/SHLC claims survive. |
| RFRA substantial burden and compelling interest | Mandate substantially burdens religious exercise and is not narrowly tailored. | Mandate serves compelling public health and gender-equality interests. | RFRA claims survive as to Hepler entities; government interests not clearly indisputable at this stage. |
| Establishment/Free Speech claims | Exemption scheme and compelled education/counseling burdens religion and speech. | Exemption does not explicitly favor a denomination; speech claims insulated. | Establishment and Free Speech claims dismissed or denied as to Hepler? (See opinion: Establishment dismissed; Free Speech dismissed.) |
| APA notice/comment; “contrary to law” | Notice-and-comment process violated; rulemaking lacked proper consideration. | Agency engaged in notice and comment; good cause shown in some aspects. | APA claims dismissed without prejudice or denied as to certain counts; others survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (RFRA/Free Exercise substantial burden analyses reference core cases on free exercise)
- Lukumi, Lukumi, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability under Free Exercise Clause)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness in pre-enforcement challenges; Abbott Labs framework)
- Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 912 F.2d 643 (3d Cir.1990) (three-prong Step-Saver ripeness test (adversity, conclusiveness, utility))
- O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA compelling-interest standard applied to religious claims)
- Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. EEOC, 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir.1988) (standing to assert owners’ RFRA/Free Exercise rights through closely-held entity)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2009) (standing to assert owners’ religious rights via closely-held business)
- Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (standing/ripe challenges to contraceptive mandate for religious institutions)