Legatus v. Sebelius
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156144
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- RFRA challenge to HRSA contraceptive mandate in ACA non-grandfathered plans; temporary enforcement safe harbor; IOM and HRSA guidelines adopted; religious exemptions for religious employers; Legatus, Weingartz, and Weingartz Supply Co. claim burdens on Catholic faith; standing and merits sought via preliminary injunction; case filed before 2013 plan-year start.
- Weingartz Supply Co. is a closely held for-profit corporation led by Daniel Weingartz and excludes contraception in its policy.
- Legatus is a non-profit Catholic association seeking to enjoin enforcement under RFRA during the safe harbor period.
- HRSA Mandate requires non-grandfathered plans to cover FDA-approved contraception without cost sharing; temporary safe harbor until Aug 1, 2013.
- The court grants for Weingartz and Weingartz Supply Co. and denies without prejudice for Legatus, finding standing and likelihood of success issues unresolved for Legatus.
- A 90–120 day discovery period and trial will follow if injunction granted or not; advisory opinions avoided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Weingartz Supply Co. | Stormans-like passthrough standing applies to owner’s rights. | RFRA prohibits corporate standing; injury indirect and speculative for a for-profit. | Weingartz Supply Co. has standing to assert owner’s free exercise rights |
| Standing of Legatus | Legatus suffers concrete injury from anticipated enforcement despite safe harbor. | Injury too attenuated/ hypothetical during safe harbor; no current enforcement action. | Legatus lacks standing at this stage |
| Likelihood of Success on the Merits (RFRA): substantial burden and government interests | HRSA Mandate substantially burdens Catholic doctrine; interests are not compelling or not narrowly tailored. | Public health and gender equality are compelling; exemptions limited but exist for religious orgs; least restrictive means in dispute. | Neither side established strong likelihood; government may meet burden at trial |
| Irreparable harm | Loss of religious freedom constitutes irreparable harm. | Harm is speculative pending final rulemaking. | Irreparable harm shown given potential First Amendment injury |
| Public interest and balance of harms | Protecting religious exercise outweighs regulatory interests during interim period. | Enforcement supports public health and gender equality interests; exemptions could create a slippery slope. | Public interest favored injunction; balance tips toward plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.2002) (injunction factors balancing as applicable to RFRA/First Amendment)
- Jones v. Caruso, 569 F.3d 258 (6th Cir.2009) (First Amendment preliminary injunction considerations)
- Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (no advisory opinions; standing concepts)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (U.S. 2006) (RFRA compelling interest and person-specific application)
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1982) (least restrictive means concept in RFRA context)
- Wis. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1972) (compelling interests and free exercise balance)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1993) (compelling interests in RFRA/Free Exercise)
- Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex., 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir.2009) (standing and ripeness in RFRA context)
- Wilgus v. United States, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.2011) (least restrictive means framing under RFRA)