Michigan Catholic Conference & Catholic Family Services v. Burwell
755 F.3d 372
6th Cir.2014Background
- Catholic-affiliated non-profits challenged the ACA contraceptive-coverage mandate, seeking preliminary injunctions from two district courts; appeals followed from denial of those injunctions.
- Some appellants claimed eligibility for a full "religious employer" exemption; others were eligible for an "accommodation" that shifts provision and payment of contraceptive services to insurers or TPAs upon a self-certification.
- The accommodation requires eligible organizations to submit a self-certification; insurers/TPAs then must separately fund and administer contraceptive coverage and notify participants.
- Plaintiffs asserted RFRA, First Amendment (Free Exercise, Free Speech, Establishment), and APA claims (including Weldon Amendment and notice-and-comment defects).
- District courts denied preliminary injunctions for lack of likelihood of success; Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the exemption/accommodation framework does not substantially burden plaintiffs’ religious exercise and does not violate the cited constitutional or APA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA — substantial burden | Mandate forces plaintiffs to provide, pay for, or facilitate contraception, making them complicit in conduct the faith forbids. | Plaintiffs are eligible for exemption or accommodation; the accommodation requires only a self-certification and does not make them provide, pay, or facilitate coverage. | No substantial burden where plaintiffs can obtain exemption or accommodation; RFRA claim unlikely to succeed. |
| Free Speech — compelled provision/counseling | Mandate compels speech by forcing coverage and contraceptive counseling. | Regulation makes insurers/TPAs—not the objecting organizations—responsible for counseling and payments. | No compelled-speech violation; accommodation does not force plaintiffs to speak or host private speech. |
| Free Speech — self-certification & gag | Self-certification coerces speech and the anti-interference rule chills advocacy. | Self-certification disclaims responsibility and does not trigger coverage; regulation allows expression of opposition and only forbids improper interference with third-party compliance. | No First Amendment violation; plaintiffs fail to identify protected speech chilled by the rule. |
| Free Exercise | Mandate is not neutral/generally applicable and was targeted at religious actors. | The requirement is neutral and generally applicable; exemptions/accommodations are neutral accommodations and do not single out religion. | Law is neutral and generally applicable; Free Exercise claim fails. |
| Establishment Clause | Distinction between exemption and accommodation favors some religious entities and entangles government in religion. | Line is based on organizational form (tax-code categories), not denomination; minimal entanglement. | No Establishment Clause violation: no preferential denomination treatment or excessive entanglement. |
| APA — Weldon Amendment & rulemaking | Mandate violates Weldon (discrimination re: abortion) and IOM guidance lacked notice-and-comment. | FDA labels and statutory context treat emergency contraceptives as contraceptives, not abortifacients; APA notice-and-comment issue was not properly litigated below. | Plaintiffs did not show likely success on Weldon claim; court declined to consider new notice-and-comment argument on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (articulating compelling-interest test for free-exercise burdens)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (rejected Sherbert test for generally applicable laws)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (RFRA legislative context)
- Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (conditioning government benefits can impose a burden on religion)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (government conduct that offends religious sensibilities is not necessarily a constitutional burden)
- Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986) (government need not conform its conduct to individual religious beliefs)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability analysis)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (compelled speech principles)
- Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) (accommodations to religion and Establishment Clause analysis)
- Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2014) (circuit authority addressing accommodation mechanics and RFRA/First Amendment claims)