Korte v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
912 F. Supp. 2d 735
S.D. Ill.2012Background
- Kortes, a Catholic family, own controlling interest in Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. (K&L), a secular for-profit business with ~90 employees; K&L provides group health insurance to nonunion employees; union employees are insured separately by their unions.
- K&L faces imminent ACA contraception coverage mandate beginning after Aug 1, 2012, risking penalties/taxes if it does not comply; Kortes claim the mandate burdens their religious beliefs.
- K&L’s 2012 “Ethical Guidelines” reflect Catholic values but do not exempt for-profit corporations; Kortes learned in Aug 2012 that their plan covers contraception and have not secured an alternative that aligns with their beliefs.
- Kort es sue under RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment, Free Speech, Due Process, and APA seeking preliminary injunction to stop the mandate’s contraceptive coverage requirement.
- Defendants argue a secular, for-profit corporation cannot exercise religion; mandate applies to group health plans and insurers, not individuals or corporations, and RFRA/First Amendment protections should not apply to K&L.
- Court considers whether standing, ripeness, and likelihood of success on the merits justify a preliminary injunction, focusing on RFRA and Free Exercise challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and ripeness for RFRA/Free Exercise claims | K&L and Kortes have concrete injury from looming penalties | K&L is a secular corporation; no direct religious burden yet | K&L and Kortes have standing and ripeness for the claims |
| Whether the ACA contraception mandate burdens religious exercise | Mandate imposes substantial burden on Kortes' religious beliefs | Mandate is neutral, generally applicable; burden is de minimis | No substantial likelihood of success on Free Exercise; RFRA burden not met at this stage |
| RFRA applicability and substantial burden | RFRA protects persons including corporations advancing beliefs | Corporations as mere vehicles cannot be burdened by religious exercise | RFRA applies but burden not substantial; no likelihood of success on RFRA claim at this stage |
| Neutrality and general applicability of mandate | Exemptions for nonprofits and others show nonneutral targeting | Exemptions are regulatory accommodations; neutral overall | Court finds likely the mandate is neutral and generally applicable; no relief on this basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F.Supp.2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012) (RFRA/Free Exercise challenges to contraception mandate (district court))
- Legatus v. Sebelius, 901 F.Supp.2d 980 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (Grandfathering and exemptions relevant to contraception mandate)
- Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius, 904 F.Supp.2d 106 (D.D.C. 2012) (RFRA and contraception mandate; self-insurance distinction)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010) (Corporations may exercise First Amendment rights; standing considerations)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (Assessing facial neutrality and object of laws affecting religion)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (Substantial burden when exemptions pressure religious conduct)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (Strict scrutiny for substantial burden on religious exercise)
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (Neutral, generally applicable laws need not accommodate religious practice)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (Pre-enforcement review and ripeness)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (Standards for issuing a preliminary injunction)