Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. v. Sebelius
904 F. Supp. 2d 106
D.D.C.2012Background
- Tyndale House Publishers challenges the ACA contraceptive coverage mandate as RFRA, First and Fifth Amendment, and APA violations in a DC District Court action.
- Plaintiffs include Tyndale, its president Mark Taylor, and a closely-held corporate ownership structure including a Foundation and multiple trusts sharing religious beliefs.
- The mandate requires non-grandfathered group plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, with exemptions for certain religious employers.
- Tyndale provides self-funded health coverage; its owners argue the mandate burdens their religious beliefs by forcing coverage of abortifacients.
- The court considers whether Tyndale has standing to raise RFRA claims on behalf of its owners and whether the mandate substantially burdens their religion.
- The court grants a preliminary injunction, finding likely RFRA success and irreparable harm, on the basis of particularized burdens and exemptions already granted to others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge RFRA claim | Tyndale stands to assert owners' rights. | No standing for for-profit to lift RFRA claims; owners lack direct injury. | Tyndale has standing to sue on owners' RFRA rights. |
| Substantial burden on religious exercise | Contraceptive mandate compels violation of core beliefs; penalties create coercion. | Burden not substantial; alternative compliance exists for Mead-like reasoning. | Contraceptive coverage mandate substantially burdens plaintiffs' religious exercise. |
| Compelling interest and tailored application | Government interests are not shown to be substantially promoted by requiring the specific contraceptives at issue. | Public health and gender-equality interests compel the mandate's application. | Government failed to show a compelling interest as applied to these plaintiffs; exemptions render analysis incomplete. |
| Least restrictive means | Granting exemption for these plaintiffs would not undermine interests. | Exemptions undermine uniform application and public health goals. | Not reached because government failed to show a compelling interest; thus unnecessary to reach least restrictive means. |
| Irreparable harm and public interest | Loss of RFRA rights and potential business closure constitute irreparable harm. | Public health goals support enforcement and uniformity. | Irreparable harm shown; public interest weighs in plaintiffs' favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Townley Eng’g & Mfg. Co. v. Doe, 859 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988) (corporation may assert owners' free exercise rights when closely held)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (corporation stands in owners' free exercise rights when beliefs align)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 546 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court 2006) (RFRA compelling interest analysis; exemptions can undermine interests)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999) (government burdens religious choice analogous to employment context)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunction factors; irreparable harm relevance)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (RFRA tailoring to the specific plaintiff; look beyond general interests)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)