More Developments In Non-Profit Challenges To Contraceptive Mandate

[rug]

Friday, January 03, 2014

As previously reported, on New Years Eve, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted Little Sisters of the Poor an emergency temporary injunction blocking enforcement against them of the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage accommodation for religious non-profits. The federal government was ordered to file a response by 10:00 AM today. Here is the Solicitor General's 37-page response filed today in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius, (Docket No. 13A691). As explained by today's Politico, Sotomayor must now decide whether to keep the temporary injunction in place, lift it, or refer the matter to all the Justices for them to decide to take one of those steps. The Justices could also grant full Supreme Court review in the case even though there has not yet been a Court of Appeals decision.

In another development, on New Years eve the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a 14-day temporary restraining order (full text) in Ave Maria Foundation v. Sebelius. The order temporarily bars enforcement of the contraceptive coverage mandate against Ave Maria Foundation, Ave Maria Radio, Domino's Farms Petting Farm, Rhodora J. Donahue Academy, and Thomas More Law Center. (TMLC Jan. 2 press release.) A hearing is scheduled Jan. 8 on whether to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction.

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/

Here is the Application for an emergency temporary injuction, filed Tuesday.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Supreme-Court-Injunction-Application.pdf

Here is Sotomayor's order granting a temporary injunction, issued Tuesday night.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf

Here is the Government's response, filed today.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Little-Sisters-Injunction-Opp-13A691.pdf

Here is the plaintiff's reply to that, also filed today.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LSP-Supreme-Court-Reply.pdf

And here is the underlying complaint, filed in September.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor-and-Christian-Brothers-v.-Sebelius.pdf

[Squinch]

1. Thanks for keeping us informed on this. It's a big one.

[rug]

2. You're welcome. This is important stuff.

Hobby Lobby should lose because it's a corporation, This is the purest religious challenge out there.

There's more discussion on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218105594

[Igel]

3. HL is a for-profit corporation.

The church I worked for in the '80s was also a corporation. Duly incorporated in the State of Oregon under the appropriate state and federal statutes. It was a non-profit corporation.

(The student enterprise organization I was affiliated with for a while, though, was a non-profit but wasn't a corporation. It organized before the law for non-profits was in place and never applied formally for non-profit status. It was grandfathered in.)

[rug]

4. There is a further distinction.

From the government brief:

They need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services, and then provide a copy of their self-certification to the third-party administrator of their self-insured group healthplan.

Hobby Lobby can't claim that.

[eomer]

5. Purest in what way?

Because of their circumstances the only thing required of Little Sisters of the Poor is to make a certification that they object on religious grounds and provide it to the administrator of their insurance program. That insurance program will not then be required to provide contraceptive coverage and has said that they won't voluntarily provide it either. It's hard to see how this is a challenge to the requirement to provide contraception when this entity isn't required to provide it, they are only required to certify to their objection.

[rug]

6. Because, unlike Hobby Lobby, this plaintiff is acknoedge by all parties to be explicitly religious.

It will be a direct measure of their religious beliefs against the requirements of the statute.

I don't think they'll prevail but some sharp lines will be drawn by this case.

[msmmwelch]

7. Exemption Form

My understanding is the Little Sisters refuse to sign a form. Has anyone seen the actual form?

[rug]

8. EBSA FORM 700 is here:

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.pdf

Welcome to DU.