Newland v. Burwell
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51899
| D. Colo. | 2015Background
- Closely held family corporation Hercules Industries and its owners (the Newlands) sued to enjoin enforcement of ACA regulations implementing the Preventive Services/Contraception Mandate requiring coverage of contraception and related services.
- The district court entered a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs; the Tenth Circuit affirmed, finding Hercules likely to succeed on its RFRA claim and remanded to await the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision.
- After the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (holding the Mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with sincere religious objections, violated RFRA), the district court resumed proceedings to enter a permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs sought a broad permanent injunction converting the preliminary injunction; Defendants sought a narrower injunction limited to the 2013 regulations and limited to Hercules (not the individual owners), and argued the injunction should rest on the Supreme Court’s decision and defendants’ consent.
- The court analyzed injunctive principles, the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court Hobby Lobby rulings, and resolved disputes over scope, parties bound, and the legal authority for the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of permanent injunction | Enjoin enforcement of the Contraception Mandate against Plaintiffs broadly (convert preliminary injunction to permanent). | Limit injunction to the exact 2013 regulations invalidated in Hobby Lobby, allowing future regulatory revisions to bind Plaintiffs absent court modification. | Injunction limited to enforcement of the Mandate regulations (not the underlying statute) against Hercules; government cannot unilaterally evade injunction by reissuing regs without seeking modification. |
| Parties bound / beneficiaries | Injunction should extend to both Hercules and the Newlands (individual owners). | Injunction should be limited to Hercules only (court decisions addressed corporate rights). | Injunction is entered for Hercules; individual owners’ claims remain unresolved and are abated. |
| Authority for injunction | (Implicit) Plaintiffs rely on district court equity power and Hobby Lobby precedent to obtain relief. | Defendants suggested injunction should be premised on the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling and defendants’ consent. | Injunction is entered under the district court’s equitable jurisdiction; it remains enforceable until modified or dissolved by the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (SCOTUS: Mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with religious objections, violated RFRA because it was not the least restrictive means)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (closely held corporations can exercise religion under RFRA; Mandate substantially burdens owners’ religious exercise)
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (injunctions may be modified/dissolved upon significant change in facts or law; burden on party seeking relief)
- Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000) (district courts, not parties, control modification/dissolution of injunctions following statutory change)
- F.T.C. v. Accusearch, Inc., 570 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009) (injunctive authority survives discontinuance of challenged conduct)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (injunctions may continue in force after illegal conduct ceases)