Korte v. Sebelius
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (December 28, 2012)
On December 28, 2012, the Seventh Circuit issued a temporary restraining order exempting a contracting company from the contraception rule under the Affordable Care Act. This ruling was in line with other courts including the Eighth District in O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. as well as other district courts including a Michigan Federal District Court, which granted a temporary restraining order to Domino’s Farms Corp. The ruling was in contrast to a recent 10th Circuit decision denying a restraining order to Hobby Lobby Arts and Crafts.
The contraception mandate, which was part of the Affordable Care Act, went into effect on January 1, 2013. It requires most private companies and employers to offer health services including contraception to their workers. Churches and other houses of worship are exempted from the mandate, but private for-profits are required to comply. Employers that do not comply are subject to enforcement actions and substantial financial penalties.
The plaintiffs, two Catholic individuals who own 88 percent of an Illinois-based contracting company with about 70 employees, sought a temporary restraining order exempting them from the contraception mandate, claiming that it violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First and Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act. They argued that the contraception mandate burdens their exercise of religion by forcing their business to pay for a health plan that includes coverage for contraception and sterilization, which their religion teaches are gravely immoral.
The government argued that because the business is a for-profit, secular enterprise, no rights under RFRA or any other law are implicated. The court stated that this argument ignores that the fact that individual owners are also plaintiffs. The court went on to say that the fact that the plaintiff business is a corporation is not dispositive on its claim.
In a 2-1 decision, the court found that the plaintiffs have a reasonable chance of winning their case and that the harm which would be imposed on the plaintiffs if they were forced to comply with the mandate would be irreparable if the law is later found to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, the harm to the government would be minimal in allowing a temporary injunction.