Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius
6 F. Supp. 3d 1225
D. Colo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs: two Little Sisters of the Poor homes and their self‑funded Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust (a church plan) challenge the ACA contraceptive mandate and related agency rules requiring no‑cost contraceptive coverage for women.
- Plaintiffs use a church‑plan, self‑insured Trust administered by Christian Brothers Services; Trust is exempt from ERISA and the Trust/TPA currently do not provide contraceptive services.
- HHS/IRS/DOL issued Final Rules accommodating certain religious employers and "eligible organizations" by allowing a self‑certification that shifts contraceptive provision/claims handling to issuers or TPAs under ERISA‑based authority.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Mandate against them; Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and on the merits.
- Court held Plaintiffs have Article III standing based on concrete administrative costs of compliance (time/money to complete the self‑certification) but denied the preliminary injunction.
- On RFRA/substantial‑burden analysis, the court found that under the existing regulations and given the facts (church plan + non‑ERISA TPA that will not provide contraceptives), the Final Rules do not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ religious exercise; agency interpretation controlling on how the accommodation operates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Little Sisters will suffer concrete injury from time and expense to comply (fill and deliver self‑certification). | Executing a form is de minimis and insufficient to create Article III injury. | Court: standing exists — administrative costs (≈$41–$44) constitute an injury in fact; 12(b)(1) dismissal on standing denied. |
| Irreparable harm / preliminary injunction | RFRA violation would be irreparable; injunction needed to avoid forced facilitation of contraceptive coverage. | No imminent RFRA violation because accommodation avoids forcing plaintiffs to provide or fund contraceptives; speculative future regulation changes do not show imminent harm. | Court: injunction denied — plaintiffs failed to show likely RFRA violation or imminent irreparable harm. |
| RFRA — substantial burden | Signing self‑certification, designating a TPA, or thereby authorizing contraceptive provision makes plaintiffs complicit and substantially burdens their religious exercise. | Under Final Rules and given the Trust’s ERISA exemption and the TPA’s stated position, the regulations do not require plaintiffs to provide, fund, or facilitate contraceptives. | Court: no substantial burden as applied — self‑certification and delivering to current TPA do not cause contraceptive provision and thus do not likely violate RFRA. |
| Regulatory interpretation / deference | Plaintiffs urge reading of rules defending against any facilitation but argue form triggers authorization. | Agencies say eligible orgs comply simply by completing self‑certification and giving it to their TPA; whether a TPA must provide is tied to ERISA and agency enforcement limits. | Court: defers to reasonable agency interpretation (Chevron/FedEx) that accommodation is satisfied by self‑certification to existing TPA; that interpretation limits plaintiffs’ burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing elements)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (plaintiff may supplement pleadings with affidavits to establish standing)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Califano, 622 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir. 1980) (out‑of‑pocket business compliance costs can establish injury in fact)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (RFRA substantial‑burden framework; for‑profit case illustrating "Hobson’s choice")
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference to reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statute/regulation)
- Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)