977 F.3d 471
5th Cir.2020Background:
- The ACA originally required individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage or pay a shared-responsibility payment; the ACA also required certain preventive services, which HHS interpreted to include all FDA-approved contraceptives.
- John J. Dierlam (pro se), a devout Catholic who opposes contraception, dropped employer coverage rather than pay premiums that supported contraceptive coverage and paid the shared-responsibility payments for 2014 and 2015.
- Dierlam sued (RFRA and multiple constitutional and statutory claims), seeking retrospective relief (refunds of the shared-responsibility payments) and prospective relief (injunctions and declaratory relief against the individual and contraceptive mandates, and a streamlined exemption).
- While litigation proceeded, Congress reduced the shared-responsibility payment to $0 (TCJA, 2017) and HHS issued expanded exemptions (including an individual/moral exemption) to the contraceptive mandate; the Supreme Court later upheld/dissolved injunctions against those exemptions in Little Sisters of the Poor.
- The magistrate judge and district court dismissed Dierlam’s claims with prejudice, but the Fifth Circuit found the lower courts’ mootness analysis incomplete and agreed the refund claim was dismissed improperly.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for the district court to conduct a full mootness inquiry and to allow Dierlam an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure jurisdictional pleading defects.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether changes (TCJA) mooted prospective relief against the individual mandate | Dierlam: mandate still exists despite $0 penalty; relief still needed | Gov’t: eliminating penalty removes prospective injury tied to enforcement | Court: Mootness must be analyzed; lower court’s cursory treatment insufficient; vacated and remanded for full analysis |
| Whether HHS exemptions mooted prospective relief against contraceptive mandate | Dierlam: new exemption is inadequate/useless to him | Gov’t: exemptions (now finalized) provide relief to objectors | Court: Mootness analysis was premature/incomplete; remand required given changing rules and Little Sisters decision |
| Whether Dierlam can seek refunds of past shared-responsibility payments (retrospective relief) | Dierlam: entitled to refund for 2014–2015 payments | Gov’t: asserted jurisdictional defects but conceded dismissal was incorrect and urged leave to amend | Court: District court erred dismissing with prejudice; Dierlam should be allowed to amend to cure jurisdictional defects; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether factual findings (judicial notice of sharing ministry, insurer availability) were appropriate at pleading stage | Dierlam: factual determinations on availability were improper on 12(b)(6) and mootness inquiry | Gov’t: lower courts relied on such facts to find lack of injury | Court: Improper to resolve these factual disputes at pleading stage for mootness; merits/fact development needed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (ACA individual mandate upheld as tax)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (case-or-controversy requirement persists through all stages)
- Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (Supreme Court upheld HHS authority to exempt or accommodate contraceptive coverage)
- N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of N.Y., 140 S. Ct. 1525 (vacatur/dismissal principles when cases moot on appeal)
- Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church of Miami, Fla., Inc., 404 U.S. 412 (remand to allow amendment where intervening statute alters relief)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (standing and case-or-controversy doctrine)