Wheaton College v. Sebelius
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120187
D.D.C.2012Background
- Wheaton College, a Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, sues Kathleen Sebelius and others over ACA preventive services regulations.
- Regulations require group health plans to cover FDA-approved contraception with no cost sharing; Wheaton objects to Plan B and Ella coverage.
- HRSA guidelines mandate coverage of contraceptive methods; interim final rule implemented in 2011 with a religious employer exemption framework.
- Final regulations issued in 2012 created a temporary enforcement safe harbor for non-grandfathered plans and ongoing rulemaking (ANPRM) to address religious accommodations.
- Wheaton seeks relief under RFRA, First Amendment, and APA, claiming the regulations force conduct conflicting with its beliefs.
- Court granted dismissal for lack of standing and ripeness, holding the issues were not yet ripe for review because the rules were being amended and Wheaton faced a safe harbor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheaton has standing to challenge the regulations. | Wheaton faces imminent enforcement risk and potential ERISA suits. | Safe harbor and ongoing amendments remove imminent injury; standing not shown. | Wheaton lacks standing. |
| Whether Wheaton's claims are ripe for review. | Regulations are binding and affect Wheaton's plan decisions. | Regulations are tentative during amendment; ripe review would prempt agency process. | Claims not ripe; premature for judicial review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luján v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (allegations of future injury alone inadequate for standing)
- City of Orrville v. FERC, 147 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (threat of future enforcement alone insufficient for standing)
- Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (premature review avoided to protect agency process)
- Eagle-Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (even purely legal questions may be unripe if agency policy not finalized)
- Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (fitness/ finality principles govern ripeness of agency actions)