article: This is one of many lawsuits brought challenging the Obama administration's 2012 Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employers to pay for employees' contraception and abortifacients via medical insurance coverage. Many religious hospitals, charities, universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations or individuals who opposed contraception on doctrinal grounds, argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs. For a full list of these cases please see our collection of the Contraception Insurance Mandate cases <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/results.php?searchSpecialCollection=12">here</a>. On October 22, 2013, a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, represented in part by the public interest firm American Center for Law and Justice, asked the court for an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the deeply held religious beliefs of the corporation's owners. On November 27, 2013, United States District Court (Judge Reggie B. Walton) granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stayed the case. The Court ordered the defendant not to enforce the ACA insurance mandate regarding contraception against the plaintiff until 30 days after the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12714&">Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services </a>, which involved similar legal issues and the same defendant as this case. On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in <i>Gilardi</i> that the ACA's contraception insurance mandate likely violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution. It therefore reversed the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against the defendant in that case. On November 6, 2013, a petition for certiorari was filed in the <i>Gilardi</i> case. The Supreme Court docketed the case on January 30, 2014. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 134 S. Ct.2751 (2014) (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12661">FA-OK-0001</a> in this Clearinghouse), a case with substantially similar facts. There, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits for-profit corporations that are closely held (e.g., owned by a family or family trust) to refuse, on religious grounds, to pay for legally mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs and devices in their employees’ health insurance plans. In light of the <i>Hobby Lobby</i> decision, on October 24, 2014, the parties submitted a joint motion to the District Court. They agreed that judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiff on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, that a permanent injunction should be entered, and that all other claims against the defendant should be dismissed. They also agreed that the issue of plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and costs would be resolved after the judgement was entered. The court adopted the parties' proposed permanent injunction on November 3, 2014. The defendant was enjoined from enforcing the “Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” that required the plaintiff to provide its employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which the plaintiff objected on religious grounds. It also barred defendant from taking any actions against plaintiff for noncompliance with the "Contraception Coverage Requirement." The only issue left open was attorneys' fees. The parties reached an undisclosed agreement regarding attorneys' fees on March 17, 2015, and asked the court to close the case. The case is now closed.
summary: On October 22, 2013, a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On November 27, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stayed the case. During the stay, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby was decided. In light of the Hobby Lobby decision, the parties agreed to a permanent injunction barring defendant from enforcing the "Contraceptive Coverage Requirement" against plaintiff, and taking any adverse action against plaintiff for noncompliance with that requirement. The case is now closed.