Little Sisters Injunction Opp

8/13/2019 Little Sisters Injunction Opp

1/37


2/37


3/37

3

but r at her about whet her a r el i gi ous obj ect or can i nvoke RFRA t o

j ust i f y i t s r ef usal t o si gn a sel f - cer t i f i cat i on t hat secur es

t he ver y rel i gi on- based exempt i on t he obj ect or seeks.

Appl i cant s have no l egal basi s t o chal l enge t he sel f -

cer t i f i cat i on r equi r ement or t o compl ai n t hat i t i nvol ves t hem

i n t he pr ocess of pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age. As bot h of

t he l ower cour t s r ecogni zed, t hi s case i nvol ves a chur ch pl an

t hat i s exempt f r om r egul at i on under t he Empl oyee Ret i r ement

I ncome Secur i t y Act of 1974 ( ERI SA) , 29 U. S. C. 1003( b) ( 2) .

Empl oyer - appl i cant s t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or t her ef or e wi l l be

under no l egal obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de t he cover age af t er

appl i cant s cer t i f y t hat they obj ect t o pr ovi di ng i t . I f

empl oyer - appl i cant s t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or wer e never t hel ess

t o deci de to pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age, appl i cant s

empl oyees and thei r cover ed dependent s woul d recei ve such

cover age despi t e appl i cant s asser t i on of t hei r r el i gi ous

obj ect i ons, not because of t hose obj ect i ons.

I n t hi s case, however , as bot h of t he l ower cour t s agai n

r ecogni zed, t he t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or of appl i cant s chur ch

pl an says i t wi l l not pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age. As a

r esul t , a si gned cer t i f i cat i on wi l l di schar ge al l empl oyer -

appl i cant s r esponsi bi l i t i es under t he cont r acept i ve- cover age

pr ovi si on, and t hei r empl oyees wi l l not r ecei ve such cover age

f r om t he t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or . Gi ven t hese ci r cumst ances,


4/37

4

appl i cant s concer n t hat t hey ar e aut hor i zi ng ot her s t o

pr ovi de cover age l acks any f oundat i on i n t he f act s or t he l aw.

I n sum, appl i cant s cl ai m a r i ght t o ext r aor di nar y r el i ef

even t hough compl i ance wi t h t he pr ocedur e t hey chal l enge wi l l

not r esul t i n anyone el se s pr ovi si on of t he i t ems and ser vi ces

t o whi ch appl i cant s obj ect . Not hi ng i n RFRA suppor t s such a

sweepi ng cl ai m, and appl i cant s r i ght t o r el i ef i n t hese

ci r cumst ances i s cer t ai nl y not i ndi sput abl y cl ear , Wi sconsi n

Ri ght t o Li f e, I nc. v. Feder al El ect i on Comm n, 542 U. S. 1305,

1306 ( 2004) ( Rehnqui st , C. J . , i n chamber s) . The appl i cat i on

shoul d be deni ed.STATEMENT

1. a. Most Amer i cans wi t h pr i vat e heal t h cover age

obt ai n i t t hr ough an empl oyment - based gr oup heal t h pl an. See

Congr essi onal Budget Of f i ce, Key I ssues i n Anal yzi ng Maj or

Heal t h I nsur ance Pr oposal s 4 & Tbl . 1- 1 ( 2008) . The cost of

such empl oyment - based heal t h coverage i s t ypi cal l y cover ed by a

combi nat i on of empl oyer and empl oyee cont r i but i ons, i d. at 4,

wi t h t he empl oyer s shar e ser vi ng as par t of an empl oyee s

compensat i on package, Li ber t y Uni v. , I nc. v. Lew, 733 F. 3d 72,

91 ( 4t h Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, No. 13- 306 ( Dec. 2, 2013) ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) .

The f eder al gover nment subsi di zes group heal t h pl ans

t hr ough f avor abl e t ax t r eat ment . Whi l e empl oyees pay i ncome and


5/37

5

payrol l t axes on t hei r cash wages, t hey typi cal l y do not pay

t axes on t hei r empl oyer s cont r i but i ons t o thei r heal t h

cover age. 26 U. S. C. 106 ( 2006 & Supp. V 2011) .

Congr ess al so has est abl i shed cer t ai n mi ni mum cover age

st andar ds f or gr oup heal t h pl ans. For exampl e, i n 1996,

Congr ess r equi r ed such pl ans t o cover cer t ai n benef i t s f or

mothers and newborns. See 42 U. S. C. 300gg- 4 ( Supp. I I 1996) ; 26

U. S. C. 9811 ( Supp. I I I 1997) ; 29 U. S. C. 1185 ( Supp. I I 1996) .

I n 1998, Congr ess r equi r ed cover age of r econst r uct i ve sur ger y

af t er cover ed mast ectomi es. 42 U. S. C. 300gg- 6 ( Supp. I V 1998) ;

29 U. S. C. 1185b (Supp. I V 1998) .

b. I n t he Pat i ent Prot ect i on and Af f or dabl e Car e Act ,

Pub. L. No. 111- 148, 124 St at . 119 ( Af f or dabl e Car e Act or Act ) , 1

Congr ess provi ded f or addi t i onal mi ni mum st andar ds f or gr oup

heal t h pl ans and heal t h i nsur er s of f er i ng cover age i n bot h t he

gr oup and t he i ndi vi dual mar ket s.

i . The Act r equi r es non- gr andf at her ed gr oup heal t h pl ans

t o cover cer t ai n pr event i ve- heal t h ser vi ces wi t hout cost shar i ng

- - i . e. , wi t hout r equi r i ng pl an par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es

t o make copayment s or pay deduct i bl es or coi nsur ance. See 42

U. S. C. 300gg- 13 ( Supp. V 2011) ( pr event i ve- servi ces cover age

1 Amended by t he Heal t h Care and Educat i on Reconci l i at i onAct of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111- 152, 124 St at . 1029.


6/37


7/37

7

ar e t hose f or whi ch t he Task For ce has t he gr eat est cer t ai nt y of

a net benef i t f or pat i ent s. 75 Fed. Reg. 41, 733 ( J ul y 19,

2010) .

Second, t he Act r equi r es cover age of i mmuni zat i ons

r ecommended by t he Advi sory Commi t t ee on I mmuni zat i on Pr act i ces

of t he Cent er s f or Di sease Cont r ol and Pr event i on. 42 U. S. C.

300gg- 13( a) ( 2) ( Supp. V. 2011) . The Commi t t ee has r ecommended

r out i ne vacci nat i on t o pr event a var i et y of vacci ne- pr event abl e

di seases that occur i n chi l dr en and adul t s. 75 Fed. Reg. at

41, 740, 41, 745- 41, 752.

Thi r d, t he Act r equi r es cover age of evi dence- i nf or med

pr event i ve car e and scr eeni ngs f or i nf ant s, chi l dr en, and

adol escent s as pr ovi ded f or i n gui del i nes suppor t ed by the

Heal t h Resour ces and Ser vi ces Admi ni st r at i on ( HRSA) , whi ch i s a

component of t he Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Ser vi ces ( HHS) .

42 U. S. C. 300gg- 13( a) ( 3) ( Supp. V 2011) . The r el evant HRSA

gui del i nes i ncl ude a schedul e of exami nat i ons and scr eeni ngs.

75 Fed. Reg. at 41, 753- 41, 755.

Four t h, and as par t i cul ar l y rel evant her e, t he Act r equi r es

cover age wi t h r espect t o women, [ of ] such addi t i onal pr event i ve

car e and scr eeni ngs ( not cover ed by t he Task Force s

r ecommendat i ons) as provi ded f or i n compr ehensi ve gui del i nes

suppor t ed by HRSA. 42 U. S. C. 300gg- 13( a) ( 4) ( Supp. V 2011) .

Congr ess i ncl uded t hi s pr ovi si on i n r esponse t o a l egi sl at i ve


8/37

8

r ecor d showi ng t hat women have di f f erent heal t h needs t han men,

and t hese needs of t en gener at e addi t i onal cost s. 155 Cong.

Rec. 29, 070 ( 2009) ( st at ement of Sen. Fei nst ei n) ; see I OM Repor t

18. I n par t i cul ar , [ w] omen of chi l dbear i ng age spend 68

per cent mor e i n out - of - pocket heal t h car e cost s t han men. 155

Cong. Rec. at 29, 070 ( st atement of Sen. Fei nst ei n) . And women

of t en f i nd t hat copayment s and ot her cost shar i ng f or i mpor t ant

pr event i ve ser vi ces are so hi gh t hat t hey avoi d get t i ng [ t he

ser vi ces] i n t he f i r st pl ace. I d. at 29, 302 ( st at ement of Sen.

Mi kul ski ) ; see I OM Repor t 19- 20.

Because HRSA di d not have such compr ehensi ve gui del i nes f or

pr event i ve servi ces f or women at t he t i me of t he Act s

enact ment , HHS r equest ed t hat t he I nst i t ut e of Medi ci ne

( I nst i t ut e or I OM) devel op r ecommendat i ons f or i t . 77 Fed. Reg.

8726 ( Feb. 15, 2012) ; I OM Repor t 1. The I nst i t ut e i s par t of

t he Nat i onal Academy of Sci ences, a semi - pr i vat e or gani zat i on

Congr ess est abl i shed f or t he expl i ci t pur pose of f ur ni shi ng

advi ce t o t he Gover nment . Publ i c Ci t i zen v. Depar t ment of

J ust i ce, 491 U. S. 440, 460 & n. 11 ( 1989) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see

I OM Repor t i v.

To f or mul at e r ecommendat i ons, t he I nst i t ute convened a

gr oup of exper t s, i ncl udi ng speci al i st s i n di sease pr event i on,

women s heal t h i ssues, adol escent heal t h i ssues, and evi dence-

based gui del i nes. I OM Repor t 2. The I nst i t ut e def i ned


9/37

9

pr event i ve servi ces as measures shown to i mpr ove wel l - bei ng,

and/ or decr ease the l i kel i hood or del ay the onset of a t ar get ed

di sease or condi t i on. I d. at 3. Based on t he I nst i t ut e s

r evi ew of t he evi dence, i t r ecommended a number of pr event i ve

servi ces f or women, such as scr eeni ng f or gest at i onal di abet es

f or pr egnant women, scr eeni ng and counsel i ng f or domest i c

vi ol ence, and at l east one wel l - woman pr event i ve car e vi si t a

year . I d. at 8- 12.

The I nst i t ute al so r ecommended as a prevent i ve ser vi ce f or

women t he f ul l r ange of cont r acept i ve methods appr oved by

t he Food and Dr ug Admi ni st r at i on ( FDA) , as wel l as st er i l i zat i on

pr ocedur es and pat i ent educat i on and counsel i ng f or al l women

wi t h r epr oduct i ve capaci t y. I OM Repor t 10; see i d. at 102- 110.

FDA- appr oved cont r acept i ve met hods i ncl ude or al cont r acept i ve

pi l l s, di aphr agms, i nj ect i ons and i mpl ant s, emer gency

cont r acept i ve dr ugs, and i nt r aut er i ne devi ces ( I UDs) . FDA,

Bi r t h Cont r ol : Medi ci nes To Hel p You, ht t p: / / www. f da. gov/

ForConsumers/ ByAudi ence/ ForWomen/ Fr eePubl i cat i ons/ ucm313215. ht m

( l ast vi si t ed J anuar y 2, 2014) .

I n maki ng t hat r ecommendat i on, t he I nst i t ut e not ed t hat

near l y hal f of al l pr egnanci es i n t he Uni t ed St at es ar e

uni nt ended and that uni nt ended pr egnanci es can have adver se

heal t h consequences f or bot h mot hers and chi l dr en. I OM Repor t

102- 103 ( di scussi ng consequences, i ncl udi ng i nadequat e pr enat al


10/37


11/37


12/37


13/37

13

admi ni st r at or . I d. at 39, 874- 39, 875; see, e. g. , 29 C. F. R.

2590. 715- 2713A( a) ( 4) , ( b) ( 1) and ( c) ( 1) .

I f an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on chooses not t o pr ovi de

cont r acept i ve cover age and compl et es such a sel f - cer t i f i cat i on

aver r i ng i t s el i gi bi l i t y f or an exempt i on f r om t he r equi r ement

t hat i t do so, t he r egul at i ons gener al l y pr ovi de anot her

mechani sm f or t he empl oyees ( and cover ed f ami l y members) t o

r ecei ve such cover age. I f an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on wi t h a sel f -

i nsur ed gr oup heal t h pl an deci des not t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve

cover age, i t s t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or or di nar i l y must pr ovi de

or ar r ange separ at e payment s f or cont r acept i ve ser vi ces i f i t

agr ees t o ent er i nt o or r emai n i n a cont r act ual r el at i onshi p

wi t h t he el i gi bl e or gani zat i on or i t s pl an. 29 C. F. R.

2590. 715- 2713A( b) ( 2) . The el i gi bl e or gani zat i on wi l l not act

as t he pl an admi ni st r at or or cl ai ms admi ni st r at or wi t h r espect

t o cl ai ms f or cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, or cont r i but e t o t he

f undi ng of cont r acept i ve servi ces. 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715-

2713A( b) ( 1) ( i i ) ( A) . The t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or i s pr ohi bi t ed

f r om i mposi ng any pr emi um, f ee, or ot her char ge, di r ect l y or

i ndi r ect l y, on t he el i gi bl e or gani zat i on or t he gr oup heal t h

pl an wi t h r espect t o payment s f or cont r acept i ve servi ces. See

78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 879- 39, 880; 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715- 2713A( b) ( 2) .

Any cost s i ncur r ed by the t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or wi l l i nst ead

be r ei mbur sed t hr ough an adj ust ment t o f eder al l y f aci l i t at ed


14/37

14

exchange user f ees at t he t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or s opt i on.

See 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 880; 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715- 2713A( b) ( 3) . A

t hi r d par t y admi ni st r at or may not r equi r e any document at i on

ot her t han t he copy of t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f r om t he el i gi bl e

or gani zat i on r egar di ng i t s st at us as such. 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715-

2713A( b) ( 4) . 3

An el i gi bl e or gani zat i on al so has no obl i gat i on t o i nf or m

pl an par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es of t he avai l abi l i t y of t hese

separ at e payment s. I nst ead, t he t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or must

i t sel f or di nar i l y pr ovi de such not i ce and do so separ at e f r om

any mat er i al s di st r i but ed i n connect i on wi t h t he el i gi bl e

or gani zat i on s gr oup heal t h cover age. See 78 Fed. Reg. at

39, 880, 39, 881; 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715- 2713A( d) . That not i ce must

make cl ear t hat t he el i gi bl e or gani zat i on i s nei t her

admi ni st er i ng nor f undi ng t he cont r acept i ve benef i t s. 78 Fed.

Reg. at 39, 881; 29 C. F. R. 2590. 715- 2713A( d) .

The r egul at i ons est abl i shi ng t hose procedur es must be r ead

agai nst t he backdr op of t he under l yi ng st at ut es t hat aut hor i ze

3 I n a case ( unl i ke t hi s one) of an i nsur ed gr oup heal t hpl an, t he heal t h i nsur ance i ssuer , upon r ecei pt of t he sel f -cer t i f i cat i on, must pr ovi de separ at e payment s t o pl anpar t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es f or cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, andi s pr ohi bi t ed f r om i mposi ng any pr emi um, f ee, or ot her char ge,or any por t i on t her eof , di r ectl y or i ndi r ectl y, on t he el i gi bl eor gani zat i on or on t he gr oup heal t h pl an wi t h r espect t o t hei ssuer s payment s f or cont r acept i ve servi ces. See 78 Fed. Reg.at 39, 875- 39, 879; see, e. g. , 45 C. F. R. 147. 131( c) ( 2) .


15/37

15

t hem. Of par t i cul ar r el evance her e i s t he pr ovi si on of ERI SA

pr ovi di ng t hat gr oup heal t h pl ans t hat ar e chur ch pl an[ s] as

def i ned i n t he st at ut e ar e exempt ent i r el y f r om r egul at i on under

ERI SA ( unl ess t hey el ect t o be cover ed) . See 29 U. S. C.

1003( b) ( 2) ; see al so 29 U. S. C. 1002( 33) ( def i ni t i on of chur ch

pl an) ; 26 U. S. C. 410( d) ( el ect i on pr ovi si on) . Accor di ngl y, i n

t he absence of an el ect i on t o be cover ed, t her e i s no ERI SA

aut hor i t y t o r egul at e ei t her t he chur ch pl an or t he t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or of a sel f - i nsur ed chur ch pl an, and t hus t he t hi r d-

par t y admi ni st r at or i s under no l egal compul si on t o pr ovi de

cont r acept i ve cover age wher e an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on wi t h a

sel f - i nsured chur ch pl an i nvokes t he accommodat i on. See

Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 29- 30 ( Dec. 27, 2013) ( Gi ven [ ERI SA s]

bl anket exempt i on [ f or chur ch pl ans] , i t woul d be unr easonabl e

t o requi r e [ t he gover nment ] t o speci f i cal l y exempt chur ch pl ans

each t i me [ i t ] pr omul gat e[ s] a new r egul at i on under [ i t s] ERI SA

aut hor i t y. Cl ear l y, t her ef or e, gi ven t hi s r egul at or y f r amewor k,

t he f act t hat chur ch pl ans are not speci f i cal l y exempt ed f r om

t he r equi r ement s l evi ed on t hi r d par t y admi ni st r at or s by t he

Fi nal Rul es does not mean t hat chur ch pl an t hi r d par t y

admi ni st r at or s ar e bound t o compl y wi t h t hese r egul at i ons. ) .

i i i . The pr event i ve- ser vi ces cover age pr ovi si on i n gener al ,

and t he cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on i n par t i cul ar , appl y

onl y i f an empl oyer of f er s a gr oup heal t h pl an. Empl oyer s,


16/37

16

however , ar e not r equi r ed t o of f er gr oup heal t h pl ans i n t he

f i r st pl ace. Lar ge empl oyer s ( t hose wi t h mor e t han 50 f ul l -

t i me- equi val ent empl oyees) f ace a pot ent i al t ax i f t hey do not

pr ovi de cover age, 26 U. S. C. 4980H ( Supp. V 2011) , but t hat gi ves

t hem a choi ce bet ween t wo l egal opt i ons: pr ovi de a gr oup

heal t h pl an or r i sk payment of t he t ax. Li ber t y Uni v. , 733 F. 3d

at 98; cf . Nat i onal Fed n of I ndep. Bus. v. Sebel i us, 132 S. Ct .

2566, 2596- 2597 ( 2012) .

2. Appl i cant s ar e Li t t l e Si st er s of t he Poor Home f or t he

Aged, Denver , Col or ado and Li t t l e Si st er s of t he Poor ,

Bal t i mor e, I nc. ( empl oyer - appl i cant s) , whi ch oper at e nur si ng

homes and whi ch are concededl y el i gi bl e t o opt out of any

r equi r ement t hat t hey f ur ni sh or pay f or cont r acept i ve cover age

under t he regul at i ons descr i bed above, Compl . 11- 15;

Chr i st i an Br ot her s Empl oyee Benef i t Tr ust ( pl an- appl i cant or

Tr ust ) , a sel f - i nsur ed church pl an t hat provi des heal t h cover age

t o a number of Cat hol i c organi zat i ons ( i ncl udi ng empl oyer -

appl i cant s) and t hat i s not subj ect t o r egul at i on under ERI SA,

Compl . 17- 27; and Chr i st i an Br ot her s Ser vi ces ( t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or - appl i cant ) , a t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or t hat

admi ni st er s t he Tr ust , Compl . 28- 30. Appl i cant s have al so

sought t o cer t i f y a cl ass of al l pr esent or f ut ur e empl oyer s

t hat pr ovi de gr oup heal t h cover age t hr ough the Tr ust chur ch pl an


17/37

17

and ar e el i gi bl e t o opt out of f ur ni shi ng cont r acept i ve cover age

under t he r egul at i ons.

The empl oyer - appl i cant s cont end t hat sel f - cer t i f yi ng t hei r

el i gi bi l i t y f or t he accommodat i on woul d aut hor i ze ( e. g. , Appl .

11) or f aci l i t at e ( e. g. , Appl . 16) t he t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or - appl i cant s pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve cover age.

On t hi s basi s, appl i cant s cl ai m t hat t he r egul at i ons vi ol at e t he

Rel i gi ous Fr eedom Rest or at i on Act of 1993 ( RFRA) , 42 U. S. C.

2000bb et seq. , whi ch pr ovi des t hat t he gover nment shal l not

subst ant i al l y bur den a per son s exer ci se of r el i gi on unl ess t he

appl i cat i on of t hat bur den i s t he l east r est r i ct i ve means t o

advance a compel l i ng government al i nt erest , 42 U. S. C. 2000bb-

1( a) and ( b) .

a. The di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat appl i cant s have st andi ng

i nsof ar as t hey wi l l expend t i me r evi ewi ng t he sel f -

cer t i f i cat i on, Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 14, but deni ed appl i cant s

mot i on f or a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on because they had not

demonst r at ed a subst ant i al bur den on t hei r exer ci se of r el i gi on,

see i d. at 16- 32. The cour t expl ai ned t hat , i n cont r ast t o t he

f or - pr of i t empl oyer s t hat br ought sui t i n Hobby Lobby St or es,

I nc. v. Sebel i us, 723 F. 3d 1114 ( 10t h Ci r . ) ( en banc) , cer t .

gr ant ed, 134 S. Ct . 678 ( 2013) , t he empl oyer s her e qual i f y as

el i gi bl e or gani zat i ons and t her ef or e ar e exempt f r om any

r equi r ement t o f ur ni sh or pay f or cont r acept i ve cover age i f t hey


18/37

18

si gn[ ] t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m and pr ovi d[ e] [ a copy] t o

Chr i st i an Br ot her s Ser vi ces, t hei r t hi r d par t y admi ni st r at or .

Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 17- 18. The cour t expl ai ned t hat , [ u] nder

t he el i gi bl e or gani zat i ons accommodat i on * * * , once

[ empl oyer - appl i cant s] compl et e t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m and

del i ver i t t o t hei r t hi r d par t y admi ni st r at or , t hey have

sat i sf i ed t he [ cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on s] r equi r ement s,

and have no f ur t her obl i gat i ons. I d. at 22.

Fur t her , t he di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat , under t he

r egul at or y scheme appl i cabl e t o chur ch pl ans, t he thi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or of t he pl an at i ssue i n t hi s case l i kewi se i s not

r equi r ed t o cont r act , ar r ange f or , or ot her wi se f aci l i t at e

cont r acept i ve cover age. Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 23. The cour t

obser ved t hat , al t hough t he regul at i ons st at e t hat t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or s wi l l pr ovi de separ at e payment s f or cont r acept i ve

ser vi ces i f an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on opt s out of doi ng so, t he

st at ut or y aut hor i t y f or t hi s r equi r ement ar i ses f r om ERI SA,

whi ch exempt s chur ch pl ans, l i ke t he pl an at i ssue her e, f r om

r egul at i on under ERI SA. I bi d. ( ci t i ng 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 879-

39, 880 and 29 U. S. C. 1003( b) ( 2) ) . Thus, t he cour t expl ai ned,

t he empl oyer - appl i cant s t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or i s not

r equi r ed t o pr ovi de separ at e payment s f or cont r acept i ve servi ces

i f empl oyer - appl i cant s i nvoke t he accommodat i on. I bi d.


19/37

19

The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed appl i cant s cont ent i on t hat

opt i ng out i s nonet hel ess a subst ant i al bur den on t hei r exer ci se

of r el i gi on because doi ng so woul d desi gnat e or aut hor i ze

t hei r t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve

coverage. The cour t expl ai ned t hat t he empl oyers cover ed by t he

chur ch pl an must onl y compl et e the sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m and

pr ovi de a copy t o t hei r t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or . Di st r i ct

Cour t Or der 26. The cour t st at ed t hat t he f or m i t sel f r equi r es

onl y t hat t he i ndi vi dual si gni ng i t cer t i f y t hat her

or gani zat i on opposes pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age and

ot her wi se qual i f i es as an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on and t hat

not hi ng on t he f ace of t he For m expr essl y aut hor i zes t he

pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve car e, par t i cul ar l y wi t h r egar d t o

chur ch pl ans. I d. at 28- 29.

Fur t her , t he di st r i ct cour t obser ved t hat an el i gi bl e

or gani zat i on sat i sf i es t he Mandat e by pr ovi di ng t he sel f -

cer t i f i cat i on f orm to [ i t s ] thi rd par t y admi ni st r ator ,

i r r espect i ve of whet her t hat t hi r d par t y admi ni st r at or i s

gover ned by ERI SA, wi l l act as a pl an and cl ai ms admi ni st r at or

f or cont r acept i ve car e, or wi l l pr ovi de payment s f or

cont r acept i ve ser vi ces. Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 25. The di st r i ct

cour t expl ai ned t hat Chr i st i an Br ot her s Ser vi ces admi ni st er s a

chur ch pl an t hat i s cat egor i cal l y exempt f r om ERI SA, i d. at

29, and i s t hus out si de the scope of t he regul at or y aut hor i t y


20/37

20

exer ci sed i n t he gover ni ng r egul at i ons wi t h r espect t o t hi r d-

par t y admi ni st r at or s. Accor di ngl y, al t hough t he t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or coul d t heor et i cal l y choose t o pr ovi de

cont r acept i ve cover age i n t he manner set out i n t he regul at i ons,

t he l aw does not r equi r e i t t o do so. And t he empl oyer -

appl i cant s t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or i n t hi s case ( Chr i st i an

Br ot her s Ser vi ces) , t he cour t not ed, does not cur r ent l y cover

cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, and i t does not i nt end t o do so i n t he

f ut ur e. I d. at 24. Accor di ngl y, i f empl oyer - appl i cant s

det er mi ne not t o of f er cont r acept i ve cover age, t hei r pl an s

par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es wi l l not r ecei ve t hem f r om any

ot her ent i t y. I d. at 29.

b. The cour t of appeal s deni ed appl i cant s mot i on f or an

i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal . The cour t not ed t hat t he empl oyer -

appl i cant s may opt out of t he cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on

by compl et i ng a sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m and pr ovi di ng i t t o t he

t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or , Chr i st i an Br ot her s Ser vi ces, and

t hat , because the Tr ust i s a sel f - i nsur ed chur ch pl an exempt

f r om ERI SA, t he t hi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or , Chr i st i an Br ot her s

Ser vi ces, woul d not be subj ect t o f i nes or penal t i es. Cour t of

Appeal s Or der 1- 2 ( Dec. 31, 2013) . Accor di ngl y, t he cour t

expl ai ned, t her e i s no enf or ceabl e obl i gat i on - - t hr ough ERI SA

or ot her wi se - - f or any of t he [ appl i cant s] t o pr ovi de any of

t he obj ect i onabl e cover age. I d. at 2. The cour t t her ef or e


21/37

21

concl uded t hat , [ u] nder t he uni que f act ual ci r cumst ances of

t hi s case, * * * an i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal at t hi s st age

i s not war r ant ed. I bi d.

ARGUMENT

Appl i cant s f ai l t o sat i sf y the demandi ng st andar d f or t he

ext r aor di nar y and r ar el y gr ant ed r el i ef t hey seek: an or i gi nal

i nj unct i on f r om t hi s Cour t . They f ai l t o demonst r at e t hat an

or i gi nal i nj unct i on i s necessar y or appr opr i at e i n ai d of t hi s

Cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on or t hat t hey have an i ndi sput abl y cl ear

r i ght t o r el i ef . I n par t i cul ar , wi t h t he st r oke of t hei r own

pen, appl i cant s can secur e f or t hemsel ves t he r el i ef t hey seek

f r om t hi s Cour t - - an exempt i on f r om t he r equi r ement s of t he

cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on - - and the empl oyer - appl i cant s

empl oyees ( and t hei r f ami l y member s) wi l l not r ecei ve

cont r acept i ve cover age t hr ough the pl an s t hi r d- par t y

admi ni st r at or ei t her . The appl i cat i on shoul d be deni ed.

1. The onl y sour ce of aut hor i t y f or t hi s Cour t t o i ssue

an i nj unct i on i s t he Al l Wr i t s Act , 28 U. S. C. 1651( a) . Hobby

Lobby St or es, I nc. v. Sebel i us, 133 S. Ct . 641, 642 ( 2012)

( Sot omayor , J . , i n chamber s) . Thi s Cour t s r ul es speci f y t hat

an ext r aor di nar y wr i t under t he Al l Wr i t s Act i s not a mat t er

of r i ght , but of di scret i on spar i ngl y exer ci sed. Sup. Ct . R.

20. 1. When an appl i cant asks the Cour t t o i ssue such a wr i t , i t

f aces an even gr eat er bur den t han i f i t had sought a st ay f r om


22/37

22

t hi s Cour t of a l ower cour t s or der . See Tur ner Br oad. Sys. ,

I nc. v. FCC, 507 U. S. 1301, 1302 ( 1993) ( Rehnqui st , C. J . , i n

chamber s) . A Ci r cui t J ust i ce s i ssuance of an i nj unct i on does

not si mpl y suspend j udi ci al al t er at i on of t he st at us quo but

gr ant s j udi ci al i nt er vent i on t hat has been wi t hhel d by l ower

cour t s, and t her ef or e demands a si gni f i cant l y hi gher

j ust i f i cat i on t han t hat r equi r ed f or a st ay. Lux v.

Rodr i gues, 131 S. Ct . 5, 6 ( 2010) ( Rober t s, C. J . , i n chamber s)

( quot i ng Ohi o Ci t i zens f or Responsi bl e Ener gy, I nc.

v.

NRC, 479

U. S. 1312, 1313 ( 1986) ( Ohi o Ci t i zens) ( Scal i a, J . , i n

chambers) ) ; see Respect Mai ne PAC v. McKee, 131 S. Ct . 445

( 2010) ; Hobby Lobby St or es, 133 S. Ct . at 642- 643. For t hat

r eason, t he i nj unct i ve power i s t o be used spar i ngl y and onl y

i n t he most cri t i cal and exi gent ci r cumst ances. Ohi o

Ci t i zens, 479 U. S. at 1313 ( quot i ng Fi shman v. Schaf f er , 429

U. S. 1325, 1326 ( 1976) ( Mar shal l , J . , i n chamber s) ) .

A wr i t of i nj unct i on i s appr opr i at e onl y i f ( 1) an

i nj unct i on i s necessar y or appr opr i at e i n ai d of t he Cour t s

j ur i sdi ct i on and ( 2) t he l egal r i ght s at i ssue ar e

i ndi sput abl y cl ear . Ohi o Ci t i zens, 479 U. S. at 1313- 1314

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Appl yi ng t hese same st andar ds, J ust i ce

Sotomayor deni ed an i nj unct i on pendi ng appel l ate revi ew i n Hobby

Lobby St or es, 133 S. Ct . at 642- 643, concl udi ng t hat nei t her


23/37

23

pr er equi si t e f or a wr i t of i nj unct i on had been met . The same

r esul t i s war r ant ed her e.

2. An i nj unct i on i s not necessary or appr opr i at e i n ai d

of t hi s Cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on. See Sup. Ct . R. 20. 1. Her e, as

i n Hobby Lobby St or es, t he appl i cant s al l ege they wi l l f ace

i r r epar abl e har m i f t hey do not r ecei ve an i nj unct i on, 4 but t hat

cont ent i on, even i f cor r ect , does not sat i sf y t hei r obl i gat i on

of demonst r at i ng t hat an i nj unct i on i s necessary or appr opr i at e

t o ai d [ t hi s Cour t s] j ur i sdi ct i on. 133 S. Ct . at 643. Even

wi t hout an i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal , t he appl i cant s may

cont i nue t hei r chal l enge t o t he r egul at i ons i n t he l ower cour t s.

Fol l owi ng a f i nal j udgment , t hey may, i f necessar y, f i l e a

pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cert i orar i i n t hi s Court . I bi d.

The l i t i gat i on i n Hobby Lobby Stor es af t er J ust i ce

Sot omayor deni ed t he i nj unct i on i n t hat case demonst r at es t hat

her concl usi on t hat an i nj unct i on was not necessary or

appr opr i at e i n ai d of t hi s Cour t s j ur i sdi ct i on was cor r ect .

The pl ai nt i f f s cont i nued t o l i t i gat e t hei r cl ai m bef or e t he

Tent h Ci r cui t af t er deni al of t he i nj unct i on; t hat cour t

addr essed t he mer i t s of t hei r RFRA cl ai m i n an en banc deci si on,

4 Appl i cant s st at e t hat [ i ] t i s bl ack l et t er l aw t hat avi ol at i on of const i t ut i onal r i ght s const i t ut es i r r epar abl ei nj ur y, Appl . 14 ( emphasi s added) , but t hey advance onl y ast at ut or y cl ai m i n t hi s Cour t ( under RFRA) .


24/37

24

see Hobby Lobby St or es, I nc. v. Sebel i us, 723 F. 3d 1114 ( 2013) ;

and t hi s Cour t gr ant ed t he gover nment s pet i t i on f or a wr i t of

cer t i or ar i r equest i ng r evi ew of t hat deci si on, 134 S. Ct . 678

( 2013) . Appl i cant s her e may l i kewi se cont i nue t o pr osecut e

t hei r appeal bef or e t he cour t of appeal s i n t he event t hi s Cour t

deni es an i nj unct i on and, i f t hey do not succeed t her e, may seek

f ur t her r evi ew f r om t hi s Cour t .

Appl i cant s st at e ( Appl . 34) t hat deni al of an i nj unct i on

woul d r i sk scut t l i ng t he pr ocess of r evi ew bef or e [ t hey] can

compl et e t he pr ocess of appel l at e r evi ew, i ncl udi ng any f ur t her

r evi ew by t hi s Cour t , but t hey do not expl ai n why t hat i s so.

Whet her appl i cant s choose t o si gn t he cer t i f i cat i on f or m or not ,

t hey may cont i nue t o l i t i gat e t hei r appeal . The cont r over sy

bet ween t he par t i es woul d r emai n l i ve.

Even apar t f r om t hi s case, chal l enges t o t he Depar t ment s

accommodat i ons f or r el i gi ous non- pr of i t s wi t h r el i gi ous

obj ect i ons t o cont r acept i ve cover age ar e pendi ng i n mul t i pl e

cour t s of appeal s. Ther e i s no r eason t o bel i eve t hat t hi s

Cour t wi l l not have t he oppor t uni t y t o consi der a pet i t i on f or a

wr i t of cer t i or ar i i nvol vi ng such a chal l enge i n t he or di nar y

cour se.

3. Appl i cant s r equest f or an i nj uncti on f ai l s f or t he

i ndependent r eason t hat i t f al l s f ar shor t of demonst r at i ng an


25/37

25

i ndi sput abl y cl ear r i ght t o r el i ef . Ohi o Ci t i zens, 479 U. S.

at 1313- 1314.

a. J ust i ce Sot omayor s deci si on denyi ng an i nj unct i on i n

Hobby Lobby St or es i s agai n di r ect l y on poi nt . I n t hat

deci si on, J ust i ce Sot omayor det er mi ned t hat t he appl i cant s had

not est abl i shed t hat t hei r ent i t l ement t o r el i ef [ was]

i ndi sput abl y cl ear , because l ower cour t s ha[ d] di ver ged on

whet her t o gr ant t empor ar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o si mi l ar l y

si t uat ed pl ai nt i f f s r ai si ng si mi l ar cl ai ms and because [ t ] hi s

Cour t ha[ d] not pr evi ousl y addr essed si mi l ar RFRA or f r ee

exer ci se cl ai ms. 133 S. Ct . at 643 ( quot i ng Lux, 131 S. Ct . at

6) ; see Lux, 131 S. Ct . at 7 ( appl i cant f ai l ed t o est abl i sh

i ndi sput abl y cl ear r i ght t o r el i ef when he acknowl edged t hat

t he cour t s of appeal s appear [ ed] t o be r eachi ng di ver gent

r esul t s i n t hi s ar ea).

As appl i cant s acknowl edge (e. g. , Appl . 5) , a si mi l ar

di ver gence of opi ni on among t he l ower cour t s i s present her e.

Di st r i ct cour t s have r eached conf l i ct i ng r esul t s i n deci si ons

i nvol vi ng r el i gi ous non- pr of i t s RFRA chal l enges t o t he

Depart ment s accommodat i ons. See Appl . 17 n. 10 ( col l ect i ng

cases) . And [ i ] n t he subset of non- exempt r el i gi ous non- pr of i t

cases anal yzi ng chur ch pl ans, - - t he most i mmedi at el y

r el evant cat egor y f or pur poses of t hi s case, see pp. 27- 33,

i nf r a - - appl i cant s st at e t hat t he spl i t on out come has been


26/37

26

t hr ee t o t hr ee. Appl . 38; see Appl . 38 n. 18 ( col l ect i ng

cases) . 5

Cour t s of appeal s consi der i ng r equest s f or i nj unct i ons

pendi ng appeal i n cases i nvol vi ng r el i gi ous non- pr of i t s have

l i kewi se r eached di ver gent r esul t s. The Si xt h and D. C. Ci r cui t s

have gr ant ed such i nj unct i ons ( over di ssent s) . See Or der ,

Mi chi gan Cat hol i c Conf er ence v. Sebel i us, No. 13- 2723 ( 6t h Ci r .

Dec. 31, 2013) ( Mi chi gan Or der ) ; Or der , Cat hol i c Di ocese of

Nashvi l l e v. Sebel i us, No. 13- 6640 ( 6t h Ci r . Dec. 31, 2013)

( Nashvi l l e Or der ) 6; Or der , Pr i est s f or Li f e v. Uni t ed St at es

Dep t of Heal t h & Human Ser vs. , No. 13- 5368 ( D. C. Ci r . Dec. 31,

2013) ( Pr i est s f or Li f e Or der ) . But t he Sevent h Ci r cui t , see

Or der , Uni ver si t y of Not r e Dame v. Sebel i us, No. 13- 3853 ( 7t h

Ci r . Dec. 30, 2013) ( Not r e Dame Or der ) , and t he Tent h Ci r cui t i n

t hi s case have deni ed such i nj unct i on r equest s.

5 Ther e i s actual l y an addi t i onal di st r i ct cour t deci si ongr ant i ng a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i n a case i nvol vi ng a sel f -i nsured chur ch pl an. See Cat hol i c Di ocese of Beaumont v.Sebel i us, No. 1: 13- cv- 00709- RC ( E. D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2013) .

6 Far f r om est abl i shi ng t hat appl i cant s ent i t l ement t or el i ef i s i ndi sput abl y cl ear , t he Si xt h Ci r cui t s or der sact ual l y say t he opposi t e. That cour t st at ed t hat , [ g] i ven t hedi ver gence of opi ni ons and t he ar guabl e mer i t of bot h t hepl ai nt i f f s and t he gover nment s posi t i on, i t i s not cl ear t hatt he accommodat i on vi ol ates t he RFRA. Mi chi gan Or der 3( emphasi s added) ; see Nashvi l l e Or der 5 ( same) .


27/37


28/37


29/37

29

RFRA r equi r es a pl ai nt i f f t o show, as a thr eshol d mat t er ,

t hat a chal l enged r egul at i on subst ant i al l y bur den[ s] [ t he

pl ai nt i f f s] exer ci se of rel i gi on. 42 U. S. C. 2000bb- 1( a) .

[ O] nl y subst ant i al bur dens on t he exer ci se of r el i gi on t r i gger

t he compel l i ng i nt er est r equi r ement . Hender son v. Kennedy, 253

F. 3d 12, 17 ( D. C. Ci r . 2001) ( emphasi s added) . Whether a bur den

i s subst ant i al i s a quest i on of l aw, not a quest i on[ ] of

f act , pr oven by t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he cl ai mant . Mahoney v.

Doe, 642 F. 3d 1112, 1121 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ; see, e. g. , Bowen v.

Roy, 476 U. S. 693, 701 n. 6 ( 1986) ( [ Pl ai nt i f f s] r el i gi ous

vi ews may not accept t hi s di st i nct i on bet ween i ndi vi dual and

gover nment al conduct , but t he l aw r ecogni ze[ s] such a

di st i nct i on) ; Kaemmer l i ng v. Lappi n, 553 F. 3d 669, 679 ( D. C.

Ci r . 2008) ( [ a] ccept i ng as t r ue t he f act ual al l egat i ons t hat

[ pl ai nt i f f s] bel i ef s ar e si ncer e and of a r el i gi ous nat ur e

but not t he l egal concl usi on, cast as a f act ual al l egat i on, t hat

hi s r el i gi ous exer ci se i s subst ant i al l y bur dened) . 8

ent i t l ement t o i nj unct i ve r el i ef , and t hey have whol l y f ai l ed t odo so wi t h r espect t o any possi bl e cover age by Expr ess Scr i pt s.

8 Cour t s do not quest i on t he cent r al i t y of par t i cul arbel i ef s or pr act i ces t o a f ai t h, or t he val i di t y of par t i cul arl i t i gant s i nt er pr et at i ons of t hose creeds. Her nandez v.Commi ss i oner , 490 U. S. 680, 699 ( 1989) . But t hat ar ea ofpr ohi bi t ed i nqui r y i s ent i r el y di st i nct f r om t he questi onwhet her a par t i cul ar bur den on t he exer ci se of r el i gi on i ssubst ant i al . The quest i on of subst ant i al bur den i s one of l aw


30/37

30

I n t hi s case, appl i cant s r el i gi ous exer ci se i s not

subst ant i al l y bur dened by t he r equi r ement t hat t hey si gn t he

cert i f i cat i on f orm expressi ng t hei r r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o

cont r acept i ve cover age i n or der t o exempt t hemsel ves f r om t he

cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on. See Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 23-

32; see al so Roman Cathol i c Ar chbi shop of Washi ngt on v.

Sebel i us, No. 13- 1441, 2013 WL 6729515, at *24- *26 ( D. D. C. Dec.

20, 2013) , i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal gr ant ed, Pr i est s f or Li f e

Or der . As expl ai ned above, compl et i on of t hat cer t i f i cat i on

woul d r esul t i n t he compl et e deni al of cover age f or t he dr ugs

and devi ces t o whi ch appl i cant s obj ect . Appl i cant s ar e

t her ef or e si mpl y wr ong as a f act ual mat t er when t hey st at e

( Appl . 19) t hat t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on woul d be used t o pr ovi de

cont r acept i ves, st er i l i zat i on, and abor t i on- i nduci ng dr ugs t o

t hei r empl oyees.

Appl i cant s cont end t hat t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on coul d end up

l eadi ng t o pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve cover age i f Congr ess wer e

t o amend the Af f or dabl e Car e Act at some poi nt i n t he f ut ur e

t o gr ant t he government some aut hor i t y out si de of ERI SA t o

enf or ce t he cont r acept i ve- cover age pr ovi si on or i f t he

Depart ment s promul gate new r egul at i ons t hat appl y t o chur ch

f or t he cour t s, and t hey ar e not bound by a pl ai nt i f f schar act er i zat i on. See i bi d. ; Roy, 476 U. S. at 701 n. 6.


31/37

31

pl ans. Appl . 24 n. 14 ( quot i ng Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 33) . The

di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded t hat i t shoul d not

hypothesi ze or specul ate about how such f ut ur e changes i n t he

l aw may i mpact appl i cant s, and t hat i t was i nst ead r equi r ed t o

eval uat e t hei r cl ai m [ g] i ven t he cur r ent ver si on of t he

r egul at i ons, as appl i ed t o t he f act s of and par t i es t o t hi s

case. Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 33- 34. And t he cour t of appeal s

deni ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef [ u] nder t he uni que f act ual

ci r cumst ances of t hi s case and at t hi s st age of t he

l i t i gat i on. Cour t of Appeal s Or der 2- 3. I n t he unl i kel y event

t hat Congress were t o enact t he t ype of amendment contempl at ed

by appl i cant s, or i f r el evant new r egul at i ons wer e i ssued,

appl i cant s coul d r enew t hei r r equest f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n

l i ght of t he changed ci r cumst ances.

Al t hough i t i s not ent i r el y cl ear , appl i cant s appear t o

separ at el y cont end that t he r equi r ement t hat t he empl oyer -

appl i cant s s i gn t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f orm substant i al l y

bur dens t hei r r el i gi ous exer ci se r egar dl ess of whet her

cont r acept i ve cover age woul d act ual l y be pr ovi ded t o thei r

empl oyees. See Appl . 23; Appl . 23 n. 13 ( cont endi ng t hat si gni ng

t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on consti t ut es par t i ci pat i ng i n t hi s

cover age scheme) . Appl i cant s cannot est abl i sh t hat i t i s

i ndi sput abl y cl ear t hat such a RFRA cl ai m woul d succeed.

I ndeed, t hat r eadi ng of RFRA, i f accept ed, woul d seemi ngl y


32/37

32

i nval i dat e any scheme i n whi ch an i ndi vi dual or ent i t y wi t h

r el i gi ous obj ect i ons i s r equi r ed t o compl et e a cer t i f i cat i on of

ent i t l ement t o an opt - out i n or der t o secur e t he opt - out . That

cannot be cor r ect .

Appl i cant s dr aw f l awed anal ogi es when t hey say t hat under

t he cour t of appeal s r easoni ng, Quaker consci ent i ous obj ect or s

woul d suf f er no penal t i es i f t hey woul d j ust j oi n t he mi l i t ar y;

J ewi sh pr i soner s woul d suf f er no bur den i f t hey woul d j ust eat

t he por k; Sevent h Day Advent i st s woul d not l ose t hei r benef i t s

i f t hey woul d j ust wor k on Sat ur days. Appl . 26- 27. To mi r r or

t he si t uat i on her e, t he quest i on i n al l of t hose cases woul d be

whet her t he rel i gi ous obj ect or coul d be requi r ed t o si gn a

cer t i f i cat i on f or m i n or der t o secur e t he r el i gi on- based

exempt i on he sought . I t i s appl i cant s posi t i on, not t hat of

t he cour t of appeal s, t hat woul d l ead t o absur d r esul t s i n t hose

cases, f or i t woul d seemi ngl y mean t hat t he Quaker coul d not be

made t o at t est t o hi s st at us as a consci ent i ous obj ect or bef or e

bei ng absol ved of hi s mi l i t ar y obl i gat i ons; t hat t he J ewi sh

pr i soner coul d not be r equi r ed t o f i l l out a f or m sayi ng he had

a r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o t he consumpt i on of por k bef or e he was

pr ovi ded an al t er nat i ve meal ; and t hat t he Sevent h Day Advent i st

coul d not be obl i gat ed t o stat e that he had a rel i gi ous

obj ect i on t o wor ki ng on Sat ur days bef or e bei ng r el i eved of hi s

shi f t .


33/37


34/37

34

Nashvi l l e Or der ; Uni ver si t y of Not r e Dame v. Sebel i us, No. 3: 13-

cv- 01276- PPS, 2013 WL 6804773, at *6- *14 ( N. D. I nd. Dec. 20,

2013) ( same) , i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal deni ed, Not r e Dame

Or der ; Pr i est s f or Li f e v. Uni t ed St at es Dep t of Heal t h & Human

Servs. , No. 13- 1261, 2013 WL 6672400, at *5- *10 ( D. D. C. Dec. 19,

2013) ( di smi ssi ng such a cl ai m) , i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal

gr ant ed, Pr i est s f or Li f e Or der .

The Court need not address t hat quest i on, however , t o deny

t he i nj unct i on her e, gi ven t hat t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on woul d

exempt t he empl oyer - appl i cant s f r om any obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de

cont r acept i ve cover age, and t hat t he thi r d- par t y admi ni st r at or

has no l egal obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de such servi ces t o empl oyer -

appl i cant s empl oyees and has made cl ear t hat i t wi l l not do so.

Cf . Di st r i ct Cour t Or der 31 n. 9 ( decl i ni ng t o addr ess

hypot het i cal s, not pr esent ed her e, i n whi ch empl oyer -

appl i cant s sel f - cer t i f i cat i on woul d r esul t i n an i nsur ance

company s del i ver [ y] [ of ] cont r acept i ve car e t o Li t t l e Si st er s

empl oyees) .

4. Appl i cant s al t er nat i ve r equest f or a wr i t of

cer t i or ar i bef or e j udgment and i nj unct i on agai nst enf or cement

pendi ng t he case s di sposi t i on on t he mer i t s i s l i kewi se

unwar r ant ed. As an i ni t i al mat t er , appl i cant s r equest f or an

i nj unct i on i n t hi s al t er nat i ve cont ext woul d be subj ect t o t he


35/37

35

same st andard descr i bed above and woul d f ai l f or al l t he same

r easons al r eady ar t i cul at ed.

Mor eover , t hi s case does not meet t he cr i t er i a f or gr ant i ng

a wr i t of cer t i or ar i , much l ess f or cer t i or ar i bef or e j udgment .

See Sup. Ct . R. 11 ( a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i bef or e

j udgment wi l l be grant ed onl y upon a showi ng t hat t he case i s

of such i mper at i ve publ i c i mpor t ance as t o j ust i f y devi at i on

f r om nor mal appel l at e pr act i ce and t o r equi r e i mmedi at e

det er mi nat i on i n t hi s Cour t ) ; see al so St ephen M. Shapi r o et

al . , Supr eme Cour t Pr act i ce 85 ( 10t h ed. 2013) ( Cer t i or ar i

bef or e j udgment i s, of cour se, an ext r emel y rar e occur r ence. )

( quot i ng Col eman v. PACCAR, I nc. , 424 U. S. 1301, 1304 n. * ( 1976)

( Rehnqui st , J . , i n chamber s) ) .

No cour t of appeal s has i ssued a mer i t s deci si on on t he

RFRA quest i on posed by appl i cant s. The cour t of appeal s i n t hi s

case ( l i ke t he Si xt h, Sevent h, and D. C. Ci r cui t s) mer el y

addr essed an i nj unct i on pendi ng appeal i n a br i ef unpubl i shed

or der . The l ack of even one cour t of appeal s deci si on

addr essi ng t he mer i t s of appl i cant s cl ai m i s r eason enough t o

deny t hei r pet i t i on f or cer t i or ar i bef or e j udgment . See FCC v.

Fox Tel evi si on St at i ons, I nc. , 556 U. S. 502, 529 ( 2009) ( Thi s

Cour t * * * i s one of f i nal r evi ew, not of f i r st vi ew. )

( quot i ng Cut t er v. Wi l ki nson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 ( 2005) ) ;

see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Mendoza, 464 U. S. 154, 160 ( 1984) ( The


36/37

36

Cour t benef i t [ s] f r om al l owi ng ci r cui t cour t s t o consi der a

quest i on bef or e t hi s Cour t gr ant s cer t i or ar i . ) .

Rat her t han poi nt i ng t o any mer i t s deci si ons f r om cour t s of

appeal s ( much l ess conf l i ct i ng ones) , appl i cant s suggest t hat

t hei r pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i bef or e j udgment shoul d

be gr ant ed so t hat t hei r case can be consi der ed al ongsi de

Sebel i us v. Hobby Lobby St or es, I nc. , cer t . gr ant ed, No. 13- 354

( Nov. 26, 2013) , and Conest oga Wood Speci al t i es Cor p. v.

Sebel i us, cer t . gr ant ed, No. 13- 356 ( Nov. 26, 2013) .

9

The i ssues

i n t he t wo set s of cases ar e, however , di st i nct . As appl i cant s

acknowl edge ( Appl . 37) , t he gr ant ed cases pr esent some

t hr eshol d quest i ons t hat cases i nvol vi ng non- exempt r el i gi ous

non- pr of i t s l i ke t he Li t t l e Si st er s of t he Poor do not , such as

whet her f or - pr of i t cor por at i ons ar e per sons exer ci si ng r el i gi on

wi t hi n t he meani ng of RFRA. Fur t her mor e, t he r egul at i ons t hat

gover n t hi s case pr ovi de a mechani sm f or el i gi bl e or gani zat i ons

t o opt out of cover age, whi ch f or - pr of i t cor por at i ons may not

do. And t o t he ext ent t hat t he Cour t s ul t i mat e deci si on i n

t hose f or - pr of i t cases mi ght i nf or m anal ysi s of t he l egal i ssues

pr esent ed i n r el i gi ous non- pr of i t cases l i ke t hi s one, t he l ower

cour t s, not t hi s Cour t , shoul d have t he f i r st oppor t uni t y t o

consi der t he quest i on. See Fox Tel evi si on St at i ons, 556 U. S. at

9 Openi ng br i ef s i n t hose cases are due on J anuar y 10, 2014.


37/37

37

529. Fi nal l y, even i f t he Cour t wer e i ncl i ned t o i mmedi at el y

gr ant cer t i or ar i i n a r el i gi ous non- pr of i t case, appl i cant s f ai l

t o expl ai n why i t shoul d do so i n one i nvol vi ng a sel f - i nsur ed

chur ch pl an t o whi ch ERI SA and i t s enf orcement mechani sms do not

even appl y.

CONCLUSI ON

The appl i cat i on f or an i nj unct i on pendi ng appel l at e r evi ew

and t he al t er nat i ve r equest f or cer t i or ar i bef or e j udgment

shoul d be deni ed.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed.

DONALD B. VERRI LLI , J R.Sol i ci t or Gener al

J ANUARY 2014

Documents

Little Sisters Injunction Opp