University of Notre Dame v. Kathleen Sebelius
743 F.3d 547
7th Cir.2014Background
- Affordable Care Act requires coverage of preventive services for women, including contraceptives, with no cost-sharing; regulations create an exemption for religious organizations; Notre Dame, a Catholic university, self-insures and contracts with Meritain and Aetna, and has never paid for contraceptives.
- Antenna: Notre Dame’s religious objections led to an exemption process via EBSA Form 700 to opt out of contraceptive coverage; government regulations expanded exemptions to include Notre Dame as a religious organization.
- Notre Dame filed suit challenging the regulations as RFRA violation; district court denied preliminary injunction; Notre Dame appealed before the district proceedings concluded, with deadlines pressing January 1 for employee plan compliance.
- Notre Dame complied by signing Form 700 and notifying Aetna and Meritain, triggering contractual arrangements to provide contraception at no cost; penalties for noncompliance could be steep.
- The central question on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, given the RFRA substantial-burden inquiry and the possibility of irreparable harm pending trial.
- The court emphasized the interlocutory nature of the appeal and that evidence was limited, so merits-based conclusions were tentative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RFRA require preliminary relief against the regulation? | Notre Dame argues RFRA imposes substantial burden. | Government contends no substantial burden; accommodation valid. | Not determined here; but the court proceeds with analysis of substantial burden. |
| Does signing EBSA Form 700 trigger contraception coverage or enable liability? | Form triggers coverage; Notre Dame becomes complicit. | Form is a non-triggered accommodation; does not compel Notre Dame to provide services. | Form does not trigger contraception provision; accommodation shifts burden to insurers. |
| Is the burden under RFRA substantial given Notre Dame’s options? | Accommodation still compels involvement in contraception. | Accommodation avoids direct involvement; burden not substantial. | Court finds potential substantial burden; merits further RFRA analysis. |
| Is the government’s exemption scheme unconstitutional under the Establishment or Free Speech Clauses? | Argument that exemptions favor churches over Notre Dame. | Exemption scheme is constitutional; narrowly tailored. | Court discusses and declines decisive ruling; issues reserved for district court. |
| Should Notre Dame’s appeal be dismissed or continued for merits trial? | Dismissal would waste resources; merits to unfold. | Appeal should proceed to resolve interim relief. | Affirmed denial of preliminary relief; appeal continues on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.2013) (RFRA burden and accommodation framework; savings for employers.)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court 2008) (preliminary injunction standard; likelihood of success and irreparable harm.)
- Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 735 F.3d 735 (7th Cir.2013) (standard for preliminary injunction balance and likelihood of success.)
- Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (Supreme Court 1986) (RFRA/Free Exercise precedent; government cannot compel conduct in all cases.)
- Saints Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895 (7th Cir.2005) (establishment-related burdens and exemptions considerations.)
- Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir.2013) (preliminary injunction standards and deferential review.)
- Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir.2003) (substantial burden interpretation under RFRA.)