Michigan Catholic Conference v. Sebelius
989 F. Supp. 2d 577
W.D. Mich.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Michigan Catholic Conference (MCC) and Catholic Charities Diocese of Kalamazoo sue DHHS, DOL, and Treasury to enjoin ACA contraceptive coverage provisions.
- ACA requires employers with 50+ employees to provide health insurance; group plans must cover preventive services incl. contraceptives, with exemptions and an accommodation for religious nonprofits.
- The 2013 final rule creates an accommodation for religious nonprofits; MCC qualifies for the exemption, Catholic Charities for the accommodation (self-certification to avoid coverage).
- MCC operates a church plan; Catholic Charities is a covered unit under MCC Plan; MCC has historically not covered contraceptives and does not intend to change that stance.
- Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction before 2014; court analyzes standing and merits under RFRA, First Amendment, and APA; court held briefing and argument completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA substantial burden on religious exercise | MCC/Catholic Charities argue accommodation forces participation in contraceptive scheme | Regulation burdens are not substantial; actions are indirect | RFRA claim fails; burden not substantial. |
| Free Exercise Clause application | Contraceptive mandate not generally applicable and targets religious practice | Law is generally applicable and neutral | No violation; law generally applicable. |
| Free Speech Clause implications | Mandate compels speech and self-certification; gag-like effects | Certification is incidental to conduct; not compelled speech | No compelled-speech violation; certification incidental. |
| Establishment Clause concerns | Exemption favors some religions over others creating establishment | Exemption not targeting specific faiths; neutral distinctions allowed | Exemption constitutional; no Establishment Clause violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1981) (substantial burden standard for RFRA)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 ((10th Cir. 2013)) (coercive impact of government pressure on beliefs)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (RFRA substantial burden assessment requires evaluating impact on beliefs)
- Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 730 F.3d 618 ((6th Cir. 2013)) (RFRA burden analysis; substantial burden not presumed by belief alone)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 ((3d Cir. 2013)) (for-profit RFRA challenge; burden not necessarily shown by belief alone)
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (Supreme Court 2012) (ministerial exception; governance concerns; not controlling here)
- Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1993) (neutral and generally applicable laws; Establishment Clause framework)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions (likelihood of success, irreparable harm))