United States: Tenth Circuit Rules In Favor Of Religious For-Profit Corporations In Birth Control Litigation Under The Affordable Care Act

Last Updated: July 9 2013
Article by Darren E. Nadel and William E. Trachman

In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al. v. Sebelius, et al.,1 an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. and Mardel Inc., two for-profit corporations owned and operated by a religious Christian family, had standing to challenge certain birth control mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and also (1) had shown that complying with the mandates would cause irreparable harm to their religious beliefs; and (2) were likely to succeed in defeating the mandates themselves.

However, rather than issue a preliminary injunction declaring that the mandates were unenforceable, the court of appeals remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to resolve two other legal issues involved in the test for whether to issue a preliminary injunction. The lower court is directed to examine:  (1) the balancing of the equities between the parties; and (2) whether an injunction is in the public's interest.  That decision (whether to issue a preliminary injunction) will determine whether the birth control mandates may be applied to Hobby Lobby and Mardel going forward, though that decision, too, will likely be appealed, regardless of the outcome. 

Almost immediately after the Tenth Circuit opinion was issued, the district court entered a temporary restraining order precluding the government from enforcing the mandates while it considers whether to issue an injunction on a more permanent basis, and announced it will hold a hearing in the case on July 19, 2013.

Birth Control Mandates under the Affordable Care Act – a Refresher

The ACA mandates that employment-based group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provide certain types of preventive health services.  One provision requires that employers follow guidelines regarding preventive care and screenings for women, as promulgated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

After requesting a report and recommendation from the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, HRSA and HHS adopted the organization's recommendations requiring that employment-based group health plans covered by ERISA include FDA-approved contraceptive methods as part of the preventive care mandate for women's health.

The FDA has approved 20 contraceptive methods, four of which function, the Tenth Circuit found, to prevent the implantation – as opposed to the fertilization – of an egg.2 These four methods of birth control are two intrauterine devices, and contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella.3

Although the ACA contains a number of exemptions regarding religious institutions and grandfathered entities, none of those exemptions apply to for-profit entities like Hobby Lobby and Mardel.  The penalties for non-compliance are steep:  $100 per day for each individual employee not covered, or $475 million annually for these corporations.  Alternatively, if the corporations dropped employee health insurance coverage altogether, they would face annual regulatory penalties of $26 million.4

Factual and Procedural Background

Hobby Lobby Stores, a craft store chain, and Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain, are both run as for-profit, closely held family businesses that "operate ... according to a set of Christian principles."  Their owners are the Greens, and the entities' business operations are managed by a trust of which each Green family member is a trustee.  The businesses and the management trust all contend that they are organized according to biblical principles, and allow faith to guide their business decisions.  The stores are not open on Sundays, and Hobby Lobby refuses to engage in activities that promote alcohol use.  The government did not contest the sincerity of the Greens' beliefs or contest the manner in which the corporations are run.

Importantly, as part of their religious beliefs, the Greens believe that human life begins when sperm fertilizes an egg.  The Greens also believe it is immoral for them to facilitate any act that causes the death of a human embryo.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its Effect on Federal Statutes

Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)5 in 1993 in response to the Supreme Court's Employment Division v. Smith6 decision regarding Native American peyote use.  Prior to Smith, case law regarding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to show a compelling state interest in enacting neutral laws that nevertheless had the incidental effect of impairing religious practices.  The laws, moreover, had to be narrowly tailored to further that interest.  When the Supreme Court changed course in Smith – eliminating the compelling state interest test for most laws of general applicability – Congress enacted the RFRA to restore the compelling state interest test.  Although the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores7 struck down the RFRA as applied to state laws, it continues to apply to federal congressional statutes such as the ACA.

The RFRA provides, as a general rule, that the federal government "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."8 But the Tenth Circuit noted that whether a for-profit corporation meets the definition of "a person" is a complicated issue.

For-Profit Corporations are "Persons" Under the RFRA

In defending the birth control mandates, the government argued that no Supreme Court decision has ever held that a for-profit corporation has met the definition of a person under the RFRA.  The Tenth Circuit wrote, in response, that no Court decision had ever held the opposite, and that whether a for-profit corporation was a person for RFRA purposes required extensive analysis.  The Tenth Circuit evaluated dictionary definitions, employment law statutes, and case law from other contexts in holding firmly that Congress did not mean to exclude for-profit corporations from the coverage of the RFRA.  The corporations, therefore, possessed standing to bring their challenge to the ACA under the RFRA.

In his concurrence with the en banc majority, Judge Hartz emphasized that the corporate form is simply one adopted by individuals to lessen their individual financial liability.  A kosher butcher, he noted, works for profit, but is no less a "person" under the RFRA if he decides to incorporate his butcher shop.  And he would have no less standing to challenge a law prohibiting merchants from selling kosher meats.9 Comparatively, while the five judges in the majority opinion acknowledged the difficulty in evaluating the sincere religious beliefs of large, publicly-traded corporations, there was no question of sincerity with regard to the Greens and the corporations they own.

The ACA Places Substantial Pressure on the Corporations to Violate Their Religious Beliefs

The Tenth Circuit noted that several Supreme Court cases interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment before the Smith decision established that even neutral laws can have a "coercive impact" by placing "substantial pressure on an adherent ... to engage in conduct contrary to a sincerely held religious belief."10

It was immaterial whether the pressure placed on an adherent was direct (because the government directly restricted an adherent's religious practice) or indirect (because of a third-party's choices).  For instance, the court noted, a cafeteria located in a federal prison that failed to offer a Muslim prisoner a halal-compliant meal placed a substantial burden on that prisoner by "presenting him with a Hobson's choice."  He could either go hungry or violate his religious beliefs.11

Similarly, the corporations in this case were faced with either compromising their religious beliefs or paying enormous fines by continuing to offer non-compliant healthcare coverage or dropping coverage altogether.  This, the Tenth Circuit noted, was sufficient to establish a substantial burden on the corporations' religious beliefs.

In response, the government contended that the corporations had no more right to object to their employees' healthcare decisions than they did the manner in which their employees spent their earned wages.  The Tenth Circuit disagreed, saying that a religious practitioner's sincere beliefs are generally protected from judicial scrutiny, even if a legal argument exists that they are incompatible with one another.  In this context, the court stated:  "[T]he plaintiff is not required to articulate a legal principle for the line he draws, let alone point to an analog from potentially related fields of constitutional law. ... [T]he question here is ... how the plaintiffs themselves measure their degree of culpability."

The Government Did Not Pursue a Compelling State Interest with the Least Restrictive Means

Importantly, the Tenth Circuit noted that the RFRA imposes a heavy burden on the government, even at the preliminary injunction stage.  It must demonstrate that the restriction on religious liberty is necessary to further a compelling state interest, and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to further that interest.  It cannot rely on broad formulations of federal policy; instead, it must argue that the compelling interest exists with respect to the particular litigants in the case.

Thus, the government's assertions that the birth control mandates are necessary to protect the public health and promote gender equality were unavailing.  Such interests, the court noted, justify "the general applicability of government mandates," as opposed to justifying why Hobby Lobby and Mardel, in particular, must be forced to comply with the mandates.12

The Tenth Circuit then noted that the mandates already do not apply to tens of millions of people – those individuals who work for religious non-profit companies or who otherwise are not within the reach of the statute.  Moreover, it noted that employees of Hobby Lobby and Mardel would still have 16 methods of birth control to choose from, all of which were consistent with the corporations' religious beliefs.  Analogizing this case to one involving the use of hallucinogenic tea for religious ceremonies, the court noted that in that case the government's decision not to prohibit sacramental use of peyote was fatal to its argument that it was important to ban the tea.13  Why, asked the Supreme Court in that case, does the government have a compelling interest in prohibiting one Schedule I drug in religious ceremonies if it continues to let other similar drugs be used?  To the same end, why must Hobby Lobby and Mardel be compelled to comply with the mandates if thousands of other employers need not because the ACA does not reach them?14

Having failed this test, the Tenth Circuit held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to the birth control mandates.

Remand

Although a majority of judges held that Hobby Lobby and Mardel possessed standing to challenge the birth control mandates of the ACA, and could likely show both irreparable harm and a likelihood of success in challenging the mandates, only a plurality of judges would have granted the preliminary injunction at this stage.  Instead, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for an initial determination of the balance of equities between the parties, and the public interest involved in whether to grant an injunction.  The district court will hold a hearing on July 19, 2013, to address these issues.

Practical Considerations

In light of the Tenth Circuit's ruling, employers – even those organized as for-profit corporations – have a much stronger argument for declining to offer health plans covering forms of birth control that they find objectionable on religious grounds.

However, religious employers should:

  • Only decline to offer health plans that cover certain forms of birth control if they have a sincerely held belief that such forms of birth control are contrary to their religious beliefs.
  • Continue to monitor this issue pending the remand to the district court and any subsequent action by federal appellate courts.
  • Recognize the risks involved in developing business and healthcare policies based on legal proceedings that are not yet final.

Footnotes 

1 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316 (10th Cir. June 27, 2013).

2 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316 at *9.

3 Although the court recognized that there is an ongoing medical debate as to whether Plan B and Ella prevent fertilization or implantation, the Tenth Circuit noted that the government's concession regarding the IUDs alone was sufficient to establish the corporations' standing.  Id. at 13 n.3.

4 The majority opinion did not discuss how much the corporations currently spend on healthcare for their employees.  In his partial dissent, Judge Matheson noted that this was a glaring omission with respect to whether the penalties were a substantial burden.  See id. at 147 n.4 (Matheson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

5 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.

6 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

7 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

8 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316 at *25.

9 Id. at *82-84.

10 Id. at *53-54.

11 Id. at *54.

12 Id. at *69.

13 Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).

14 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13316 at *71-72.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Darren E. Nadel
William E. Trachman
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions