Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Burwell
150 F. Supp. 3d 419
M.D. Penn.2015Background
- The court addresses defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment on the ACA Contraceptive Mandate and related exemptions.
- Real Alternatives is a Pennsylvania nonprofit, non-religious group that provides life-affirming pregnancy and parenting services and contracts with subcontractors; it objections to contraceptive coverage on moral grounds.
- The ACA requires coverage of preventive services without copayments, including contraceptive methods; a religious employer exemption was created and later refined, with a religious accommodation.
- Real Alternatives challenges the religious employer exemption under the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and RFRA, arguing the exemption is irrational and burdensome to its employees.
- Plaintiffs allege standing and seek injunctive relief requiring an exemption tailored to their nonreligious, anti-abortion stance and to stop contraceptive coverage in their plan.
- The court resolves standing, then disposes of the substantive claims, denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions and granting defendants’ motion in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Real Alternatives | Real Alternatives has injury in fact and redressable injury via insurer relief. | Standing hinges on insurer’s willingness to provide a contraceptive-free plan; insufficient proof. | Real Alternatives has standing to sue. |
| Fifth Amendment equal protection challenge to exemption | Religious exemption violates equal protection by privileging religious groups over secular ones like Real Alternatives. | Rational-basis review applies; exemptions serve legitimate interests in protecting religious freedom. | Exemption survives rational-basis review. |
| APA challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate | Mandate is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes federal law, including Weldon and Church Amendments. | Exemption is rationally drawn to further compelling interests; no contrary federal-law violation. | APA claims fail; mandate otherwise not arbitrary or contrary to law. |
| RFRA claim by Real Alternatives Employees | RFRA requires exemption; maintaining coverage substantially burdens employees’ religious exercise. | Burden is not substantial; government has a compelling interest and least-restrictive means. | RFRA claim fails; no substantial burden; exemptions and interests upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (RFRA compelling interest and least-restrictive means framework; contraception coverage debate)
- Amos, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v., 483 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1987) (religious exemptions and neutral application of laws; rational basis context)
- Center for Inquiry v. Marion County Circuit Court Clerk, 758 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes religion from secular belief systems for RFRA-like analyses)
- March for Life v. Burwell, 128 F. Supp. 3d 116 (D.D.C. 2015) (contrast on rational basis and religious vs. secular objections to exemptions)
- Wilkins v. Penns Grove-Carneys Point Regional School District, 123 F. App’x 493 (3d Cir. 2005) (religious exemption rationality in public policy context)
- Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 929 F. Supp. 2d 402 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (RFRA standing and substantial burden considerations; religious exemptions context)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (substantial burden framework under RFRA; installation of burdens analysis)
- Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1986) (RFRA-like reasoning on implementation burdens and moral objections)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (substantial burden and government interest considerations)
- Priests for Life v. HHS, 772 F.3d 258 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (public health and RFRA interests; contraception coverage context)