Newland v. Sebelius
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104835
D. Colo.2012Background
- ACA requires most Americans to have insurance, with no-cost preventive care for women in many plans.
- Grandfathered health plans and religious exemptions create gaps in the preventive care mandate.
- Hercules Industries, a secular for-profit corporation with Catholic beliefs, maintains a self-insured plan excluding contraception.
- Plaintiffs sue RFRA, First/Fifth Amendment, and APA challenges seeking to enjoin enforcement of contraception coverage.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pending merits trial; court grants injunction preserving the current status quo.
- Court notes the injunction is limited to plaintiffs and does not apply broadly to other parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA substantial burden | Hercules’ free exercise burdened by mandate. | Burden not substantial; plan is corporate policy and burden arises for Hercules. | RFRA burden shown; substantial burden acknowledged |
| Least restrictive means | Government should provide free contraception through alternative means. | Existing exemptions suffice; alternatives not required. | Government failed to prove no less restrictive alternative |
| Compelling interest | Exemptions undermine claimed compelling interest in public health. | Public health is a compelling interest; exemptions do not defeat it. | Mass exemptions undermine compelling interest as applied to plaintiffs |
| Irreparable harm | Harm imminent; three months until effective date necessitates relief. | Harm not sufficiently imminent; relief unwarranted. | Irreparable harm shown; injunctive relief warranted |
| Public interest | Free exercise rights trump regulatory goals; exemptions support public interest. | Public health goals favor enforcement. | Public interest favors injunction due to RFRA concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (likelihood and irreparable harm standard for injunctions)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 546 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court 2006) (heightened burden under RFRA for certain injunctions)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 1211 (Supreme Court 2006) (RFRA burden-shifting framework and least restrictive means)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court 1993) (strict scrutiny of government burdens on religion)
- Herd v. United States, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2011) (RFRA burden-shifting and exemptions context)
- RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (relaxed likelihood-of-success standard for injunctions)