Persico v. Sebelius
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8993
W.D. Pa.2013Background
- Plaintiffs challenge the ACA preventive services mandate requiring coverage of contraception, sterilization, and related counseling without cost sharing.
- Plaintiffs include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie and affiliated entities, who allege the mandate violates RFRA, the First Amendment, and the APA.
- Defendants are the Secretaries of HHS, Labor, and Treasury and their departments; the matter is brought under federal question jurisdiction.
- The court discusses the mandate’s regulatory history, including HRSA guidelines, the religious-employer exemption, and the safe-harbor enforcement period.
- Plaintiffs argue the religious exemption is narrow and the mandate forces them to violate religious beliefs or face penalties; Defendants argue enforcement is deferred for exempt entities and that amendments are forthcoming.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing and ripeness; the court analyzes ripeness and finds the case unripe for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case ripe for review on RFRA/First Amendment claims? | Plaintiffs contend immediate harm from the Mandate and ongoing planning injuries. | Defendants contend ongoing rulemaking and safe harbor render the claims unripe. | Not ripe; ongoing amendments and safe harbor preclude mature dispute. |
| Are the APA claims ripe for judicial review? | Plaintiffs claim final agency action and reviewable regulatory processes. | Because the Mandate is not a final action in its current form, APA review is premature. | Not ripe; Mandate in current form not final agency action. |
| Does the religious-employer exemption affect ripeness or stand as a separate final agency action? | Exemption could cause ongoing harms if not adequately accommodative and may force future actions affecting funding and services. | Exemption is a final regulation as to religious employers and is not subject to further immediate change. | Not ripe; the exemption is context-specific and cannot be adjudicated separately from the Mandate at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (U.S. 2003) (ripeness factors and dangers of premature review)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967) (prematurity and pre-enforcement review principles)
- Khodara Environmental, Inc. v. Blakey, 376 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2004) (three-part ripeness test for declaratory suits)
- Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (guidance on safe harbor and amendments; not ripe in light of ongoing rulemaking)
- Belmont Abbey College, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2012) (ripeness and ongoing amendment rationale)
- Nebraska ex rel. Bruning v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 877 F. Supp. 2d 777 (D. Neb. 2012) (ripeness analysis in preventive services context)
- Zubik v. Sebelius, 911 F. Supp. 2d 314 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (APA/finality considerations in similar challenges)