959 F.3d 341
9th Cir.2020Background
- In 2014 the California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) concluded that legal abortion is a “basic health care service” and sent August 22, 2014 letters to seven insurers directing immediate removal of abortion-coverage restrictions.
- Skyline Wesleyan Church previously purchased a DMHC-regulated plan excluding most abortions consistent with its religious beliefs; after the Letters its insurer amended coverage to include abortion, and no comparable plan was available to Skyline.
- Skyline sued the DMHC (2016), alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause and other constitutional and state-law claims and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the DMHC, holding Skyline lacked Article III standing and that its claims were unripe; Skyline appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit held Skyline’s federal Free Exercise claim justiciable (standing and both constitutional and prudential ripeness satisfied), vacated the district court’s rulings on the other claims’ justiciability, and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Ninth Circuit declined to resolve the Free Exercise claim on the merits, remanding to the district court (noting, inter alia, that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari on an issue bearing on Free Exercise doctrine).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury, traceability, redressability) | Letters caused concrete injury by forcing coverage contrary to religious beliefs; redressable by nominal damages or injunction | Injury speculative or caused by insurers; redress depends on third-party insurer action | Skyline has standing: postenforcement injury, traceable to DMHC, redressable (nominal damages and injunction likely to help) |
| Constitutional ripeness | Injury already realized when insurers complied with DMHC Letters | No definitive agency denial of an exemption; premature until insurer seeks exemption | Constitutionally ripe—this is a postenforcement challenge with concrete effects |
| Prudential ripeness | Issue is fit: legal question, final agency action (Letters), immediate effect | DMHC retains discretionary exemption power; claim premature without an exemption request | Prudentially ripe: Letters were definitive enough and plaintiff need not first seek an ill-defined exemption process |
| Whether appellate court should decide merits now | Ask court to decide Free Exercise on the existing record to avoid further delay | Merits were not decided below; normally should be decided first in district court | Court declines to reach merits in first instance and remands to district court for adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (government action that has determinative or coercive effect on third parties can satisfy causation/redressability)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (standing/redressability where government regulation indirectly constrains private choices)
- Oklevueha Native Am. Church v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012) (ripeness for religious-liberty challenges despite available exception procedures)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (ripeness and the role of prudential ripeness doctrine)