GROTE INDUSTRIES, LLC v. SEBELIUS
4:12-cv-00134
S.D. Ind.Jan 3, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Grote Industries, LLC/Inc. and several owners sue HHS, DOL, and Treasury and their agencies over the ACA preventive care mandate (RFRA challenge).
- The court previously denied a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on the merits and no substantial RFRA burden.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration after a Seventh Circuit emergency injunction in Korte v. Sebelius (no. 12-3841) issued Dec. 28, 2012, closely related to these issues.
- The district court distinguished Korte as an emergency, non-plenary ruling not binding as precedential on merits.
- Court reiterates that reconsideration is unwarranted; Korte does not compel different conclusions, and relief would require appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Korte requires reconsideration of the RFRA ruling | Korte shows substantial burden on religious exercise | Korte is not controlling precedential on merits | Denied; not controlling on merits; reconsideration denied |
| Whether the Mandate imposes a substantial RFRA burden on plaintiffs | Mandate imposes substantial burden on religious exercise | No substantial RFRA burden established | Denied; plaintiffs failed to show substantial RFRA burden |
| Whether for-profit corporation/owners may assert a RFRA claim | For-profit entities may raise RFRA claims | Seventh Circuit did not decide this; not established | Denied; issue exceeds Korte scope; not decided in this order |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (motions panel rulings are tentative and not plenary)
- Homans v. City of Albuquerque, 366 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 2004) (motions panel decisions on scant records lack plenary weight)