O'Brien v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
894 F. Supp. 2d 1149
E.D. Mo.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Frank O’Brien and OIH are secular for‑profit employers in Missouri challenging ACA preventive services rules.
- HRSA adopted IOM recommendations requiring contraceptive coverage; the regulations include religious employer exemptions, grandfathered plans, and a temporary safe harbor.
- OIH’s current policy covers contraceptives; OIH is not a religious employer and cannot rely on exemptions; penalties apply for noncompliance.
- Defendants are HHS, the Treasury, and DOL with their Secretaries; they enacted and enforce the challenged ACA regulations.
- Plaintiffs seek RFRA, First Amendment, and APA relief; defendants move to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA claim viability | OIH can exercise religion under RFRA | RFRA burden not met; no substantial burden on plaintiffs | Count I dismissed for lack of substantial burden |
| Free Exercise Clause applicability | Regulations substantially burden religious exercise | Regulations neutral and generally applicable | Count II dismissed; no violation of Free Exercise |
| Establishment Clause challenge | Exemption creates government preference and entanglement | Exemption neutral and accommodations proper | Count III dismissed; no Establishment Clause violation |
| Free Speech implications | Plaintiffs subsidize others' speech/expressive conduct | Regulations involve conduct, not compelled speech | Count IV dismissed; no compelled speech violation |
| Administrative Procedure Act standing and arbitrariness | APA claims; challenges to regulations as arbitrary | Plaintiffs lack zone‑of‑interests; regulations reasonably developed | Count V dismissed; actions not arbitrary and capricious; no APA jurisdiction over ACA‑section 18023(b)(1)(A)(i) claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (RFRA origins; substantial burden standard guidance)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (compulsory education; RFRA rationale)
- Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability; selective burdens fail neutrality)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (substantial burden; religious freedom context)
- Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (general applicability; exempted conduct example)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (RFRA/Free Exercise challenges to contraceptive coverage rules)
- Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 7 N.Y.3d 510 (2006) (Establishment Clause accommodations; neutrality rationale)
- Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.4th 527 (2004) (state accommodation; neutrality under Establishment Clause)