Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
7 F. Supp. 3d 88
D.D.C.2013Background
- Priests for Life, a New York-based nonprofit, challenges the ACA contraceptive services mandate as applied to its religious accommodations.
- Priests for Life does not qualify for the religious-employer exemption but seeks the accommodation available to eligible organizations.
- The accommodation allows self-certification to exclude contraceptive coverage from Priests for Life’s plan, with coverage provided by the insurer directly.
- The self-certification itself is not claimed to violate RFRA; plaintiffs argue the required third-party provision of coverage burdens their religion.
- The district court consolidated briefing, held oral argument, and, after Gilardi, ordered supplemental briefing on its impact; the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied summary judgment as moot.
- The court ultimately dismissed all counts, holding the RFRA claim insufficient to show a substantial burden and rejecting other constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFRA substantial burden standard applied | Priests for Life claims the accommodation forces cooperation with contraception. | RFRA burden requires modification of plaintiffs’ own conduct, not third-party actions. | RFRA claim dismissed for lack of substantial burden. |
| Free Exercise Clause neutrality and general applicability | Accommodation is not neutral or generally applicable because it targets objectors. | Regulations are neutral and generally applicable, with accommodations enhancing religious freedom. | Free Exercise claim dismissed. |
| Free Speech and Expressive Association | Self-certification forces speech and burdens organizational messaging. | Speech is incidental to regulating conduct and not inherently expressive. | Free Speech/Expressive Association claim dismissed. |
| Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses | Accommodation and exemptions create preferential treatment for some religious groups. | No unconstitutional establishment or equal protection; exemptions are permissible accommodations. | Establishment and Equal Protection claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (U.S. (1972)) (substantial burden analysis for religious exercise measures core beliefs)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (RFRA burden requires modification of plaintiff’s own behavior; third-party actions insufficient)
- Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (U.S. (1986)) (government acts may affect beliefs without coercing conduct; internal governmental processes not required to align with religion)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. (1988)) (government programs burdens may be indirect and not coercive to religious practice)
- Gilardi v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (circuit held burden when owners must affirmatively endorse contraceptive coverage in their plans)
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013) (RFRA and contraception regulations; accommodation analysis cited by district court)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (en banc; related contraception mandate considerations cited in context of RFRA challenges)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (FAIR), 547 U.S. 47 (U.S. (2006)) (speech/association analysis—regulation of conduct incidental speech, not compelled speech)
- Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (U.S. (1963)) (RFRA remedial purposes and substantial burden framework origin)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. (1990)) (neutral general-applicability law not requiring religious exemptions absent RFRA)