Schools v. Sebelius
988 F. Supp. 2d 935
N.D. Ind.2013Background
- Grace and Biola challenge the contraception mandate under RFRA, the First Amendment, and the APA, seeking a preliminary injunction.
- The ACA requires coverage of FDA-approved contraceptives with no cost-sharing, subject to religious exemptions and accommodations for eligible nonprofit religious organizations.
- The 2013 final rules created an accommodation: eligible religious organizations self-certify to an issuer/TPA, which then provides or arranges coverage at no cost.
- Grace and Biola argue the accommodation forces them to facilitate access to objectionable contraceptives, violating their religious beliefs.
- Grace and Biola do not qualify as ‘religious employers’ under the exemption and are not grandfathered; they seek to halt enforcement against their plans before Jan/Apr 2014 milestones.
- The court applies RFRA/specific substantial-burden analysis, finding a likelihood of success and irreparable harm, justifying a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the accommodation substantially burden religious exercise? | Grace/Biola contend the self-certification and facilitation compel violation of beliefs. | Govt says burden is de minimis or not substantial. | Yes, substantial burden shown; RFRA requires strict scrutiny. |
| Can the government satisfy strict scrutiny with least restrictive means? | Accommodation is not least restrictive; many alternatives exist. | Accommodation advances important interests; narrowly tailored. | No, the accommodation fails strict scrutiny; not least restrictive. |
| Are the plaintiffs entitled to a preliminary injunction on RFRA grounds? | Irreparable harm and likelihood of success justify injunction. | No irreparable harm or likelihood of success demonstrated at this stage. | Yes, injunction granted to bar enforcement against Grace and Biola. |
| Do the equities and public interest support injunction? | Protects religious liberty and minimizes harm to mission; public interest favors rights. | Enforcement supports public health objectives and broad exemptions exist. | Public interest and balance weigh in favor of injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2013) (RFRA strict scrutiny with focus on substantial burden and least restrictive means)
- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013) (substantial burden and coercion analysis under RFRA)
- Geneva College v. Sebelius, 960 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (RFRA burden and accommodation considerations for religious claimants)
- Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 988 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ind. 2013) (challenge to contraception accommodation by a religious university)
- Zubik (and Persico) v. Sebelius, 983 F. Supp. 2d 576 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (considerations of the accommodation's scope and burden on religious institutions)