Monaghan v. Sebelius
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35144
E.D. Mich.2013Background
- Monaghan is owner and sole shareholder of DF, a secular for‑profit property manager.
- Plaintiffs challenge the ACA contraceptive mandate under RFRA, APA, and First Amendment claims.
- Defendants are HHS, Treasury, and Labor and their Secretaries administering the mandate.
- DF would face penalties if it does not provide contraceptive coverage; Monaghan contends this violates his Catholic beliefs.
- DF provides Catholic‑oriented facilities and services, and Monaghan runs DF to align with his faith; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to avoid the mandate while litigation proceeds.
- Court previously granted a TRO and now analyzes likelihood of success on the RFRA claim and the related forces of irreparable harm, public interest, and balance of harms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA standing of DF to sue on Monaghan’s behalf | DF can assert RFRA rights as Monaghan’s instrument | DF has no separate RFRA rights | DF may assert RFRA claim on Monaghan’s behalf. |
| Substantial burden on religious exercise | Mandate forces Monaghan to violate beliefs or face penalties | Burden is attenuated to DF as employer | Mandate substantially burdens Monaghan’s exercise of religion. |
| Compelling governmental interest in applying mandate | Public health and gender equality justify mandate | Uniform application serves compelling interests; exemptions suffice | Government failed to show a compelling interest as applied to plaintiffs. |
| Least restrictive means to achieve interest | Direct government provision or incentives could substitute for mandate | Alternatives impose costs and hurdles; not proven least restrictive | Government failed to prove no less restrictive means available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (owners’ beliefs aligned with business interests; standing to raise RFRA)
- Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. EEOC, 859 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1988) (corporation may assert owners’ free exercise rights)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Townley Engineering & Manufacturing Co., 859 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1988) (see Townley Engineering; standing for closely held firms)
- G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Michigan Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994) (public interest in protecting constitutional rights)
- Dayton Area Visually Impaired Persons, Inc. v. Fisher, 70 F.3d 1474 (6th Cir. 1995) (public interest in safeguarding constitutional rights)