Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius, 914 F. Supp. 2d 943

Plaintiffs challenge the ACA preventive services mandate as applied to their self-insured employee plan.
Grote Industries and related individuals argue the mandate burdens their Catholic religious beliefs and practices.
HRSA adopted IOM recommendations expanding contraceptive and related services; exemptions exist for religious employers and grandfathered plans.
Grote Industries is secular and not a religious employer; their plan is self-insured and not grandfathered, so the mandate applies to January 1, 2013.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing RFRA, APA, and First/Fifth Amendment violations.
Court denies the preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs unlikely to prove their claims on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RFRA substantial burden	Grote claims the mandate substantially burdens religious exercise.	Mandate imposes no substantial burden; effects are indirect and attenuated.	No substantial burden likely; RFRA claim unlikely to prevail.
First Amendment — Free Exercise	Mandate is not neutral or generally applicable and burdens religious practice.	Mandate is neutral and generally applicable; exemptions do not destroy neutrality.	Law deemed neutral and generally applicable; no likelihood of success.
First Amendment — Establishment Clause	Religious-employer exemption creates a caste system among religions.	Exemption criteria focus on structure, not affiliation; not an establishment violation.	Exemption does not violate Establishment Clause; not likely to succeed.
First Amendment — Free Speech	Mandate compels subsidizing or expressing views on contraceptives/abortifacients.	Policy regulates conduct, not compelled political speech; subsidies are incidental.	No compelling speech violation; no likelihood of success.
Administrative Procedure Act	Defendants failed to follow notice-and-comment procedures for relevant regulations.	Interim final regulations with exemptions were issued under statutory authority with good cause; commenters were later sought.	APA procedures adequately satisfied; no likelihood of success.

O’Brien v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1149 (E.D. Mo. 2012) (substantial burden standard and RFRA analysis guiding outcome)
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012) (RFRA burden and religious employer exemptions discussed)
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1963) (substantial burden threshold and compelling interest framework)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (free exercise burden and centrality considerations)
Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1993) (neutrality and general applicability analyses for burdens on religion)
Mead v. Holder, 766 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2011) (RFRA burden discussion in RFRA/ACA context)
Am. Family Ass’n v. FCC, 365 F.3d 1156 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (neutrality and exemptions leading to permissible distinctions)