Hobby Lobby Stores Inc v. Sebelius, 5:12-cv-01000

Corporate plaintiffs Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Mardel, Inc. challenged HHS regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate as violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The Supreme Court decided in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the HHS regulations at issue violate RFRA; the parties agree plaintiffs prevail under that decision.
The parties dispute the proper scope of relief: plaintiffs seek a broad injunction reaching the underlying statute and regulations; defendants seek a narrow injunction limited to the particular regulations at issue.
The district court finds the complaint and Supreme Court decision focused on the regulations rather than the statute itself and determines a broader injunction would exceed the litigated issues.
The court is concerned that enjoining the statute could raise separation-of-powers and intersessional-legislature problems (one Congress binding a later Congress) and that RFRA’s interplay with later statutes could be unsettled.
The court enters judgment for the corporate plaintiffs, permanently enjoins enforcement of the specific HHS contraceptive regulations against these plaintiffs (and related penalties/actions), dismisses remaining claims without prejudice, and directs parties to confer on fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of remedy — should injunction target statute or regulations?	Broad injunction against statute and regulations to prevent future regulations from undermining RFRA rights	Narrow injunction limited to particular HHS regulations challenged in this case	Held: Injunction limited to the challenged regulations and enforcement against these plaintiffs; not the statute itself
Whether court may enjoin future regulatory applications	Plaintiffs seek broad relief to avoid additional litigation over new regulations	Defendants argue court should not pre-emptively constrain future rulemaking	Held: Court declines to anticipate future regulations; issues limited to what was litigated and decided
Potential constitutional concern of one statute binding later Congress	Plaintiffs rely on RFRA’s command that later statutes must expressly exempt themselves	Defendants warn that broadly enjoining statute raises issues about one Congress affecting future Congresses	Held: Narrow remedy minimizes questions about RFRA’s effect on later-enacted statutes and separation-of-powers concerns
Relief as to penalties and enforcement	Plaintiffs seek to bar penalties and enforcement based on the mandate	Defendants oppose broad bar beyond the specific regulations	Held: Court permanently enjoins enforcement, penalties, fines, or other actions under the contraceptive regulations against these plaintiffs

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (Sup. Ct.) (held the challenged HHS regulations violate RFRA)
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) (discusses limits on one Congress binding a later Congress)
Reichelderfer v. Quinn, 287 U.S. 315 (1932) (stating a particular Congress cannot impose its will on succeeding Congresses)
Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005) (Scalia concurrence addressing limits on legislative control over future lawmaking)
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.) (appellate decision addressing RFRA’s reach and legislative intent)