Zubik v. Sebelius
911 F. Supp. 2d 314
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge ACA/HRSA preventive services regulations under RFRA, First Amendment, and APA; the challenged regulations include contraceptive coverage and related exemptions.
- Plaintiffs are Catholic entities (Diocese of Pittsburgh, Catholic Charities, Catholic Cemeteries) with self-insured, grandfathered health plans; they argue enforcement would burden religious beliefs.
- Defendants issued final contraceptive coverage regulations with a religious employer exemption and a temporary safe-harbor for non-profit religious organizations; amendments were anticipated via ANPRM and NPRM processes.
- Defendants announced a plan to amend the regulations to address religious objections, with changes expected before the end of the enforcement safe harbor around January 2014.
- The case was brought pre-enforcement; the Court must address ripeness and standing to determine jurisdiction.
- Court granted Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion, concluding lack of ripeness and standing, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the case ripe for pre-enforcement review? | Plaintiffs contend the regulations are final and causing immediate injury. | Regulations are being amended; enforcement is not imminent due to safe harbor. | Not ripe; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Do Plaintiffs have standing to sue now? | Plaintiffs suffer ongoing religious concerns and planning burdens. | Safe harbor and grandfathered plans negate imminent injury. | No standing; injury in fact not imminent or concrete. |
| Do APA/finality and religious-employer exemption claims survive given ongoing rulemaking? | APA challenges and exemption interpretation are final and concrete. | Agency is actively amending regulations; not final for purposes of review. | Claims foreclosed for lack of ripeness and finality at this time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (pre-enforcement review requires fitness and hardship factors; final rule suitable for review when final and immediate effects exist)
- Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2012) (ripe inquiry considering ongoing amendment process and safe harbor)
- Wheaton College v. Sebelius, 887 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2012) (standing/ripe issues in pre-enforcement challenge to ACA mandate)
- Nebraska v. HHS, 877 F. Supp. 2d 777 (D. Neb. 2012) (relevant to administrative challenges to HHS rules and safe harbors)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- National Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dept. of Interior, 538 U.S. 803 (2003) (finality and ripeness considerations in agency action)