On July 15, 2015, five non-profit organizations concerned with environmental justice filed this lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Represented by Earthjustice, the plaintiffs sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs claimed that the EPA violated the APA by failing to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d <i>et seq.</i> (“Title VI”). (The plaintiffs did not bring a Title VI claim.) They sought declaratory and injunctive relief along with attorney’s fees. Specifically, the plaintiffs singled out five specific cases in which they said the EPA violated the APA by failing to issue preliminary findings in response to Title VI complaints they had filed between 1994 and 2003 alleging that environmental harm disproportionately affected people of color. The plaintiffs also claimed that the EPA's pattern and practice of failing to issue preliminary findings violated the APA. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the EPA’s failure to meet its mandatory duty and comply with the deadline set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 7.115, which requires the EPA to issue preliminary findings and recommendations for voluntary compliance within 180 days of initiating its investigation into a Title VI complaint, constituted agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” under the APA. The plaintiffs also sought an injunction compelling the EPA to issue preliminary findings and recommendations for voluntary compliance for the investigations into each of plaintiffs’ Title VI complaints within ninety days of this Court’s order and complete the complaint investigation procedures in response to each of plaintiffs’ Title VI complaints in compliance with the timelines set forth in the federal regulations. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. On September 3, 2015, the case was reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. On January 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint but did not alter any of their claims or prayer for relief. The EPA filed a motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment on January 26, 2017; the plaintiffs also filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 30, 2018, Judge Armstrong ruled on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the defendant had a mandatory duty to issue preliminary findings within 180 days after accepting a complaint for investigation, and that the defendant failed to comply with that duty. While declaratory relief was available to the plaintiffs, the court found that there could be no injunctive relief awarded with respect to the underlying Title VI complaints because the EPA had resolved them. However, the court stated that it could issue a prospective injunction requiring the defendant to timely process plaintiffs’ future Title VI complaints that are accepted for investigation by the defendant. Based on these findings, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part. The court also granted summary judgment for the EPA on the plaintiffs' pattern or practice claim. However, the court did not determine the remedy; it requested that the plaintiffs submit proposed prospective injunctive relief. 2018 WL 1586211. On July 11, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to alter the judgment, arguing that Judge Armstrong’s orders regarding prospective injunctive relief were overbroad and unwarranted by the plaintiff’s claims. On the same day, noting that the defendants were “apparently dissatisfied with the Court’s resolution,” Judge Armstrong referred the case to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for settlement conferences. Due to budget constraints and appropriations withholdings by the federal government, the EPA filed a motion to stay proceedings on December 26, 2018, which Judge Beeler granted. Appropriations were restored on January 29, 2019, and the settlement conference, which had originally been scheduled for January 10, was rescheduled to April 9, 2019. While the parties had originally agreed to update the court by April 30 with the results of their settlement efforts, they were still unable to reach a consensus by May 17. In light of the parties’ continued inability to come to a settlement, the court invited both parties to respond to the defendants’ July 11 motion to alter judgment. As of August 14, 2019, the plaintiffs had filed a response to which defendants had replied, and the case is ongoing.

Summary: Five non-profit organizations focused on environmental justice filed this lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to issue preliminary findings in Title VI complaints. Judge Armstrong granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss with regard to each individual claim addressing a specific complaint in which the EPA failed to issue preliminary findings. Judge Armstrong granted the defendant's motion to dismiss with regard to the claim that the EPA's pattern and practice of failing to issue preliminary findings violated the APA. The parties entered settlement talks which have, as of October 2019, been unsuccessful, and the case is ongoing.


On July 27, 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Tribe, represented by Earthjustice, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to block the Corps’ actions related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (a 1,168-mile crude oil pipeline running from North Dakota to Illinois). The Tribe sought injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees and costs under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). The case was assigned to Judge James E. Boasberg. The Tribe challenged the application of Nationwide Permit 12, which authorized discharges into federal waters, but which was issued without meeting NHPA requirements. The Tribe also challenged the issuance of multiple federal authorizations that were needed to construct certain segments of the pipeline. The plaintiff alleged that these authorizations were made in violation of the CWA and its governing regulations and without compliance with NHPA and NEPA. On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction requiring the Corps to withdraw Nationwide Permit 12 as applied to the Dakota Access Pipeline and to withdraw verifications issued for the Dakota Access Pipeline to discharge in federally regulated waters at 204 sites along the pipeline route. The following day, Dakota Access, LLC (the company authorized to construct the pipeline), filed an unopposed motion to intervene as a defendant. The court granted this motion on August 8, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe moved to intervene as plaintiff. The court granted this motion on August 19, 2016. To prevent further destruction of sacred and culturally significant sites near Lake Oahe, North Dakota, the Standing Rock Tribe filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The Cheyenne River Tribe filed a separate motion for a similar TRO, additionally asking the court to enjoin Dakota Access from harming and antagonizing members of the Tribe who were peacefully protesting at the site of construction. On September 8, 2016, the Cheyenne River Tribe filed an amended complaint with allegations similar to the complaint of the Standing Rock Tribe. Additionally, it alleged violations of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, the Sioux Nation Treaty of 1868, and the Flood Control Act of 1944. On September 9, 2016, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the court could prevent damage to important cultural resources by enjoining the Corps’ issuance of pipeline-related permits. 205 F.Supp.3d 4. That same day, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On January 18, 2017, the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. On November 15, 2016, Dakota Access filed an answer to Cheyenne River Tribe’s first amended complaint that included crossclaims against the Corps. This cross-claim sought a judgment declaring that Dakota Access had legal right-of-way, within the meaning of the Mineral Leasing Act, to build and operate an oil pipeline beneath the federal land that borders Lake Oahe. On December 5, 2016, Dakota Access moved for summary judgment on this cross-claim. On January 6, 2017, the Corps moved to dismiss Dakota Access’ cross-claim, arguing that Dakota Access did not plausibly allege that the United States Department of the Army had completed the administrative decision-making process required to grant Dakota Access an easement to install a pipeline under Corps-managed Federal land at Lake Oahe, pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. On that same day, the Cheyenne River Tribe moved to dismiss Dakota Access’ cross-claim for lack of ripeness, as its claim challenged an agency action that was not yet final. In the alternative, it requested the court to enter summary judgment against Dakota Access’ cross-claim. On February 9, 2017, the Cheyenne River Tribe moved for a preliminary injunction directing the Corps to withdraw the easement/right-of-way allowing Dakota Access to drill an oil pipeline under federally-owned lands. On March 7, 2017, the court denied this motion, finding that the Tribe had failed to show that the Corps’ decision to grant an easement to Dakota Access constituted a substantial burden on its members’ free exercise of religion. 239 F.Supp.3d 77. The Tribe appealed this decision to the District of Columbia Circuit but then voluntarily dismissed the appeal. Also on February 9, 2017, the Cheyenne River Tribe moved for an ex parte TRO to halt construction and drilling of an oil pipeline under federally-owned lands. In the meantime, President Donald Trump took office. Within days of his inauguration, President Trump directed the Corps to “review and approve” pipeline permits on an expedited basis. The Corps obeyed this direction, and on February 8, 2017, it issued the easement and summarily terminated the environmental impact statement process. After the permit was issued, construction began. On February 14, 2017, the Standing Rock Tribe sought partial summary judgment on this issue, claiming that this easement decision, as well as the Corps’ July regulatory actions and accompanying NEPA analysis, violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Cheyenne River Tribe made a similar motion; the Corps and Dakota Access also moved for summary judgment (in two motions that are not available on the docket). In response to all of these motions, on June 14, 2017, the court found the Corps’ environmental analysis unlawful, and remanded the matter to the Corps for further analysis. 255 F.Supp.3d 101. While those motions were pending, in March 2017 the court ordered that this case be consolidated with Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Cheyenne River Tribe filed a second amended complaint against Dakota Access and Corps on June 14, 2017, seeking additional declaratory relief. The Standing Rock Tribe filed a first amended complaint, alleging violations under the Mineral Leasing Act, the Fort Laramie Treaty, and the Flood Control Act. On December 4, 2017, in order to mitigate the risk of potential oil spills during the pendency of the litigation, the court ordered the parties to coordinate to finalize a spill response plan for the tribal areas in dispute. 280 F.Supp.3d 187. The court also ordered Dakota Access, with input from the Tribes, to select a third-party independent expert to review conditions and assess the pipeline’s compliance. Finally, Dakota Access was required to submit bi-monthly reports to the court. On March 19, 2018, the court dismissed the Tribes’ NHPA claims as moot (in light of the completed construction of the pipeline), and granted summary judgment to the Corps and Dakota Access on the treaty-based claims and the NEPA claims. 301 F.Supp.3d 50. On December 12, 2018, the court entered judgment in favor of the Corps and Dakota Access on the plaintiffs’ RFRA claims (by the plaintiffs’ consent). The court also ruled that the Tribes could argue that their NHPA claims were not, in fact, moot. On January 3, 2019, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file 4 supplemental complaints, alleging that the Corps’ decision to affirm its original decision (on remand) was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, and the Tribes’ treaty rights. On March 25, 2020, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the Corps had violated NEPA by determining that an environmental impact statement was unnecessary; it ordered the Corps to complete an environmental impact statement. Correspondingly, the court ordered the parties to brief the question of whether the original easement should be vacated during the pendency of this second remand. In the same order, the court granted summary judgment to the Corps and Dakota Access on the Tribes’ renewed NHPA claims and on the Oglala Tribe’s claims under the Mni Waconi Act of 1988. 2020 WL 1441923. In May 2020, the court received nearly a dozen amicus briefs. These included a brief from 14 states, another from 37 members of Congress, and a third brief from 28 federally recognized Indian tribes and related organizations. On July 6, 2020, the court vacated the easement which had authorized construction of the pipeline under the Missouri River near Lake Oahe. It ordered that the pipeline must be closed and emptied by August 5, to remain closed until the Corps completed an Environmental Impact Statement (which was expected to take until 2021). 2020 WL 3634426. Dakota Access immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit; the district court denied a motion for stay on July 9, 2020. On July 14, 2020, the D.C. Circuit (Judges Rogers, Griffith, and Pillard) issued an administrative stay of the district court’s order regarding closure of the pipeline. On August 5, it denied the motion to stay the district court’s order vacating the original easement; however, although that ruling stood (and the pipeline was therefore not legally authorized), the D.C. Circuit found that the district court had not made the “findings necessary for injunctive relief” under the four-factor test in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The court therefore remanded to the district court for further consideration, indicating that the Corps must clarify its position on continued operation of the pipeline in view of the vacated easement, after which the district court could take further action as appropriate. As of August 26, 2020, further proceedings are pending in the district court.

Summary: This 2016 lawsuit was brought by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, later joined by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe, sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that they had violated the NHPA, the CWA, and NEPA by authorizing the construction of a pipeline over tribal land. Dakota Access, LLC later intervened as a defendant. On July 6, 2020, the court ordered the pipeline closed until the Corps could complete an Environmental Impact Statement, expected to take until 2021; on August 5, the D.C. Circuit stayed that decision, and remanded to the district court for further consideration.


On March 19, 2013, the City of Evanston filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The City sued Chevron U.S.A. Inc., E-Town Community Ventures, LLC, Texaco, Inc., the Chevron Corporation, and the Chevron Environmental Management Company under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and local ordinances. The City also alleged that the defendants had committed trespass and created a private nuisance. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. The case was assigned to Judge Gary Feinerman and Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox. This action concerned the release and migration of hazardous substances, specifically petroleum and its byproducts, from leaking underground storage tanks at a vacant commercial property in Evanston, IL, formerly owned and operated as a gasoline service station by the Texas Corporation. According to the City, the soil and groundwater at the Texaco Station and the City Property was contaminated with petroleum, gasoline and their byproducts, including, among other things: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; and lead as a result of Texaco’s operations at the site. The City claimed that by allowing these contaminants to seep into the ground, the defendants had violated the RCRA. On August 6, 2013, the City filed an amended complaint, removing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. as a defendant, while retaining all other defendants. On October 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim and that the RCRA claim failed to adequately and sufficiently allege the existence of an “imminent and substantial endangerment.” The defendants alternatively argued that the court should abstain from hearing Count 1 of the complaint because the relief sought could be obtained under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in an administrative proceeding in front of the Illinois Pollution Control Board. On February 21, 2014, Judge Feinerman denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the threat of future harm, as it was plausible that contaminated subsurface water would migrate to the surface through the portions of the station uncovered by asphalt or through adjacent properties. After this decision, the parties agreed to a private settlement agreement that is not publically available. On April 15, 2015, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal of the action with prejudice. On April 23, 2015, the court granted the dismissal and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement. As of July, 20, 2018, the case is ongoing for settlement purposes.

Summary: This 2013 lawsuit was brought by the City of Evanston, IL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The City sued Chevron U.S.A. Inc., E-Town Community Ventures, LLC, Texaco, Inc., the Chevron Corporation, and the Chevron Environmental Management Company under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and local ordinances, alleging that the defendants have caused the release of hazardous substances at a vacant commercial property in the city. In 2015, the parties reached a private settlement agreement. The case is ongoing for settlement purposes.


On October 16, 2009, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and several individuals filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, and California Franchise Tax Board Executive Selvi Stanislaus for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs sought a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that 26 U.S.C. §§107 and 265(a)(6) violated the Establishment Clause by providing preferential tax benefits to ministers of the gospel. Section 107 provides a tax exclusion for the rental value of a home furnished to a minister as part of his compensation or the rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation. In order to qualify for this exclusion, the home or rental allowance must be provided as remuneration for services which are "ordinarily the duties of a minister of the gospel." Section 265(a)(6) allowed a minister of the gospel to claim deductions for residential mortgage interest and property taxes. Plaintiffs requested that the Court enjoin any allowance or grant of tax benefits for ministers of the gospel under §§107 and 265(a)(6). Plaintiffs also sought an injunction against the California Franchise Tax Board for sections 17131.6 and 17280(d)(2) of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, which provided similar tax benefits to ministers of the gospel. On October 22, 2009, an individual named pastor and 100 unnamed ministers moved to intervene in the action. On December 2, 2009, the District Court (Judge William B. Shubb) denied the requests to intervene on grounds the movants' interests were adequately represented by the federal defendants, and that they failed to show independent grounds for jurisdiction. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Geithner, 262 F.R.D. 527 (2009). The federal defendants and Selvi Stanislaus filed separate Motions to Dismiss on February 26, 2010. On May 21, 2010, Judge Shubb granted Stanislaus' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under the California constitution and plaintiffs' claims challenging California Revenue and Taxation Code section 17280(d)(2), and denied the motion in all other respects. Judge Shubb further denied the federal defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's claim challenging Internal Revenue Code § 107 and granted the motion with respect to plaintiff's claim challenging Internal Revenue Code § 265(a)(6). The Pastors appealed the denial of the Motion to Intervene to the 9th Circuit. On May 9, 2011, the 9th Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion for intervention as of right but vacated the denial of the motion for permissive intervention. The 9th Circuit explained that the District Court did not apply the correct legal rule; the Pastors were not required to make any further showing of independent jurisdictional grounds. On May 26, 2011, the federal defendants filed a motion challenging plaintiffs' standing in light of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 131 S.Ct. 1436 (2011). On May 27, 2011, Selvi Stanislaus filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds. In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, filed on April 4, 2011, the Supreme Court held that taxpayers lacked standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim on Arizona's tuition tax credit. On June 17, 2011, the parties jointly submitted a Stipulation of Dismissal to the Court and the matter was dismissed without prejudice on June 20, 2011.

Summary: On October 16, 2009, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and several individuals filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against the U.S. Treasury, IRS, and California Franchise Tax Board for violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs sought a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that 26 U.S.C. §§107 and 265(a)(6) violated the Establishment Clause by providing preferential tax benefits to ministers of the gospel. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 131 S.Ct. 1436 (2011), holding that taxpayers lacked standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim on Arizona's tuition tax credit, the parties submitted a joint Stipulation of Dismissal and the case was dismissed without prejudice on June 20, 2011.


On May 21, 2012, the Catholic Archbishop of Washington and several affiliated Catholic organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)), and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. On January 25, 2013, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted the government's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for a lack of ripeness, as regulations regarding the contraceptive mandate were under review by the Department of Health and Human Services. On March 25, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On October 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot due to the newly issued regulations regarding the ACA contraception mandate. On September 20, 2013, the plaintiffs refiled this case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, joined by a number of additional affiliated Catholic nonprofit organizations, objecting to the final regulations updating the contraceptive mandate issued on June 28, 2013. They alleged that under the previous version of the regulations, nonprofit organizations affiliated with a house of worship that benefited from its self-insured plan could also benefit from its exemption to the mandate, and asserted this shelter was no longer available. Similar to the initial complaint, the plaintiffs objected to being required to notify their insurers and or third-party health insurance administrators of their objection to the contraceptive services mandate, and asserted violations of the RFRA, APA, and their rights under the First Amendment. On December 21, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and on December 23, 2013, the District Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction pending appeal. On January 17, 2014, the government cross-appealed to the DC Circuit Court (14-5021). On January 23, 2014, the plaintiffs’ appeal was consolidated with the the government’s cross-appeal, and  Priests for Life v. Sebelius. The Court of Appeals (Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard) ruled on November 14, 2014, that the accommodation the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has designed for religious nonprofits to comply with the contraceptive coverage mandate does not burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom. 772 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2014). On May 20, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for rehearing en banc, reasoning that the result in  Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius did not compel them to credit the plaintiffs’ misinterpretation of the regulation the plaintiffs were challenging. 808 F.3d 1. On June 10, 2015, the Circuit Court ordered that the mandate be stayed through August 26, 2015, pending petition for writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. On November 6, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case in order to consider whether notifying the federal government by signing a form identifying the employer as a religious nonprofit that objects to the contraceptive services mandate (so that the government can work with the insurer or benefits provider to ensure employees have contraceptive coverage) violates RFRA, or constitutes the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest. This case was consolidated with six other cases dealing with this issue. Together, the cases are known as Zubik v. Burwell [II]. This case was argued on March 23, 2016. On March 29, 2016, in an unusual move, the Supreme Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs suggesting a solution to their disagreement, in which employees could still receive contraception coverage without employers giving any notice to the government. On May 16, 2016, the Court issued a per curiam order remanding all seven cases to their respective courts of appeals, ordering the lower courts to give the parties time to come to agreement on an approach that that "accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'" 136 S.Ct 1557, 1560. The Court took no position on the merits of this case. Back in the Circuit Court, the parties submitted a series of status reports indicating they had entered into settlement negotiations with the new Trump administration. After the parties reached a settlement agreement in this and related cases on October 13, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. The settlement agreement detailed that new regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services granted religious nonprofits an exemption from the contraceptive mandate. The Government agreed that the contraceptive mandate could not be legally enforced against the plaintiffs in this matter or their health plans. The Government agreed that plaintiffs would be exempt from the contraceptive mandate and any materially similar regulation or agency policy. The Government also agreed that plaintiffs and their health plans would not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of the settlement agreement and that plaintiffs may reserve their right to challenge any new contraceptive-mandate-like law that the Government may enact. Finally, the Government agreed to pay plaintiffs $3 million in fees and costs. The circuit court dismissed the case on Nov. 6, 2017. The case is now closed.

Summary: In 2012, the Catholic Archbishop of Washington and several affiliated Catholic organizations filed a lawsuit in the District of DC against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs, and seek to enjoin their enforcement. This case was dismissed for lack of ripeness on January 25, 2013, and refiled on September 20, 2013. On November 6, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether the accommodation to the contraceptive services mandate violates the RFRA. This case was consolidated with six others, and is known as Zubik v. Burwell. After the case was argued in the Supreme Court on March 23, 2016, the Court issued a per curiam order on May 16, 2016 remanding all seven cases to their respective courts of appeals. The Court ordered that the parties be given time to come to agreement on ensuring contraceptive access without burdening religious freedom. 136 S.Ct 1557, 1560. The Court took no position on the merits of these cases.


On January 24, 2013, Freshway Logistics and Fresh Unlimited (d/b/a Freshway Foods) and their owners filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb) and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)). The plaintiffs, represented by public interest attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice, sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs and First Amendment rights. On March 3, 2013, the District Court (Judge Emmet Sullivan) denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. 926 F.Supp.2d 273. On March 5, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of preliminary injunction. On March 29, 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court granted an injunction pending appeal. On November 1, 2013, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the District Court erred in denying the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction with the respect to the individual owners and remanded for consideration of other preliminary-injunction factors. The Court held the company owners' religious freedom was burdened when they chose between violating their beliefs and paying a penalty. The Court affirmed, however, the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to the Freshway companies, holding that corporations could not exercise religious beliefs. 733 F.3d 1208. This case was remanded to the D.C. District Court. Both the government and the plaintiffs sought review in the Supreme Court. The two petitions were held at the Supreme Court while the Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (also known as Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius). The Hobby Lobby decision issued on June 30, 2014: In 5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. (The Court emphasized, however, that alternative methods for meeting the government's asserted interest were available.) The next day, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's opinion and remanded for further consideration. (Technically, the Court denied the government's petition, but granted the plaintiffs' petition, vacated the judgment, and remanded.) On August 18, 2014, the District Court granted a preliminary injunction to allow the plaintiffs to decide how they would like to proceed following the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision. On October 20, 2014, the District Court granted a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs against enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate and associated sanctions, with the agreement of the plaintiffs and the government. On March 27, 2015 the parties jointly filed a status report stating the parties had reached an agreement on attorneys' fees and costs and they were paid, and the case was awaiting an entry of final judgment. The case is presumed closed.

Summary: On January 24, 2013, Freshway Foods and its owners filed a lawsuit in the DC District Court against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)), and the First Amendment. Following the Hobby Lobby decision, the district court granted a permanent injunction.


On October 2, 2012, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., a Christian Bible publisher, and its owner filed this lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb), the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)), and the First and Fifth Amendments. The plaintiffs, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, seek to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. On November 16, 2012, the District Court (Judge Reggie B. Walton) granted a preliminary injunction. The government defendants appealed this interlocutory decision to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on January 15, 2013, yet moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal on April 25, 2013. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the government's motion on May 3, 2013. 2013 WL 2395168. On July 15, 2015, the District Court entered a permanent injunction, preventing the government from enforcing the version of the contraceptive mandate at issue in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. The plaintiffs requested an injunction with unusually broad language similar to the injunction entered by the District Court for the District of Colorado in Newland v. Sebelius, that would enjoin further regulations developed under the mandate, but the Court rejected their request. The injunction in this case (Tyndale House Publishers) did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing further civil lawsuits to challenge new regulations implementing the contraceptive services mandate. Any motions for attorney fees and costs were to be filed before October 30, 2015, but none were recorded with the court.

Summary: In 2012, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., and its owner filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan against the Federal Government, seekingto enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. On July 15, 2015, the District Court granted a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs, preventing the government from enforcing the version of the contraception mandate at issue in Hobby Lobby.


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 here. On November 4, 2013, the managing member of a private company, and the company, Encompass Develop, Design, and Construct, LLC, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Department of Labor, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and United States Department of the Treasury. The plaintiffs brought the suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), alleging defendants violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that providing, paying for, or facilitating access to such services was inconsistent with its religious beliefs and contended that compliance with the contraception requirement was a substantial burden on their religious exercise. On February 28, 2014, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the first case that the Supreme Court took up challenging the Contraception Mandate. The case had substantially similar facts to the case at hand, as it featured a closely-held for-profit company alleging that the Contraceptive Mandate violated the owner's religious beliefs. That case is discussed at length here. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 134 S. Ct.2751 (2014). There the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permitted 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. On February 2, 2015, the Court—with both parties consenting—entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and issued a permanent injunction, due to the ruling in Hobby Lobby. 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." All other complaints against defendant were dismissed. The only issue left undecided was the plaintiff's attorneys' fees. The parties reached an undisclosed agreement regarding attorneys' fees on June 1, 2015, and asked the court to close the case. The case is now closed.

Summary: On November 4, 2013, the managing member of a private company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the federal government seeking a permanent injunction from enfacement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act mandating contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. In light of the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, the Court ordered 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.


On October 30, 2013, three business owners and their businesses filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, asked the court to issue both a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that they operate their business pursuant to their faith in God and that compliance with the contraception coverage requirement is a substantial burden on their religious exercise. On November 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and an unopposed motion to stay the proceedings until thirty days after the substantially similar contraception mandate issues are settled by the Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs. appeal. The court granted the motion on November 19, 2013. On November 5, 2014, following the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which held that closely-held for-profit corporations should have access to the contraception mandate accommodation, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate and related fines against the plaintiffs. The Court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on their RFRA claim, dismissed all other claims, and instructed the parties to meet and confer on attorney's fees and costs. On January 7, 2015, the parties notified the court that they had come to an agreement on attorney's fees and costs and that no further proceedings were necessary.

Summary: On October 30, 2013, three business owners and their business filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit in the District of Columbia against the Federal Government asking the court to issue both a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The court granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction and stayed the proceedings pending the Court of Appeals resolution of a substantially similar dispute. Following the Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the District Court entered a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, which will allow them to use the contraceptive services mandate accomodation.


On October 23, 2013, a non-profit organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception insurance mandate, even with the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations, was unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for a permanent injunction keeping the government from enforcing the contraception insurance mandate against the organization and other similarly situated religious non-profits. On January 10, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the grounds that the accommodation to the ACA mandate does not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom under RFRA or cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm. On May 21, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs preliminary injunctive relief on the basis that the plaintiffs had shown they were sufficiently likely to succeed on their merits, when considering the Eighth Circuit had twice granted injunctions pending appeal to similarly situated plaintiffs challenging the mandate. 22 F. Supp. 3d 934. On July 18, 2014, defendants filed notice to appeal the preliminary injunction. On September 17, 2015, the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's injunctive relief for the plaintiff. The Court accepted the the plaintiff's argument that they would be forced to violate their religious beliefs by complying with either the contraceptive mandate or the accommodation process or to incur severe monetary penalties for refusing to comply. The court argued that the current accommodation process was not the least restrictive means of furthering the government's interests and that the plaintiffs would be substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the mandate and accommodation process substantially burdened their exercise of religion in violation of RFRA. 801 F.3d 946. On November 24, 2015, the parties jointly moved to stay proceedings pending Supreme Court review of related cases. The parties stated that the Supreme Court had recently granted review in seven other cases "raising substantially similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenges to the same regulations that Plaintiffs challenge in this case." The parties further indicated that the government may seek review of this decision as well. In addition, the government may decide to seek review of the Eighth Circuit’s September 17, 2015 decision. The court granted the stay on November 30. The government moved for review in the Supreme Court on December 15, 2015, which the court granted on May 16, 2016. In that order, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case in light of Zubik v. Burwell, in which the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court rulings in the various consolidated cases. Without ruling on the merits, the Supreme Court directed the parties to attempt to resolve their conflict as both sides had indicated a mutually beneficial resolution was possible. On June 12, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief from compliance with the provisions of the ACA mandate that conflicted with their religious beliefs after defendants, the Department of Health and Human Services, conceded that these provisions violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Summary: On October 23, 2013, a non-profit organization filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa against the U.S. government. The plaintiff challenged the Affordable Care Act's contraception insurance mandate. The district court granted the preliminary injunction. The Government appealed, but in 2015 the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The government ultimately conceded that the insurance mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the court enjoined it.


This case was one of many filed in federal district courts across the country by non-profit Catholic organizations challenging the ACA's system for ensuring that employee health insurance covers birth control. Specifically, the plaintiffs objected to notifying the government or their health insurer that they were claiming a religious exemption from the ACA regulation's mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. The current regulatory accommodation allows religious organizations who object for religious reasons to providing contraceptive coverage for their employees to notify their insurer, or notify the government directly, of that objection. Then, the government will work with the insurer or health benefits provider to ensure the employees have access to contraception. The religious employers claim that this approach violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they see their action of notifying the government as starting a chain of events that results in their employees receiving contraception. This particular lawsuit was filed by the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth-South Bend and affiliated Catholic organizations (Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc.; Saint Anne Home & Retirement Community of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend; Franciscan Alliance, Inc.; Specialty Physicians of Illinois, LLC; University of Saint Francis; and Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.) on May 21, 2012 in the Northern District of Missouri against the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the First Amendment. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that the contraception coverage mandate violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. On Oct. 2, 2012, the plaintiffs moved to consolidate this case with Tonn and Blank Construction, LLC v. Sebelius, a case with similar legal issues and the same defendants. Tonn and Blank Construction, LLC, the plaintiff, was a Catholic, wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the plaintiffs in this action. On Oct. 19, 2012, the case was reassigned from Judge William C. Lee to Judge Jon E. DeGuilio for the purpose of judicial efficiency, as Judge DeGuilio was already assigned to Tonn and Blank. On Apr. 1, 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for consolidation, finding that the cases involve different outcome-determinative facts which will require a distinct legal analysis in each case, most notably the fact that the plaintiff in the Tonn and Blank case was a for-profit entity that was not eligible for the temporary safe harbor provision. Meanwhile, on March 14, 2013, Judge Jon A. DeGuilio had stayed the case pending (1) the finalization of contraceptive coverage rules from the Department of Health and Human Services; and (2) the appeal of University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, a case involving the same issues pending before the Seventh Circuit. The order required the parties to submit a joint report stating their intentions with respect to the lawsuit and an agreed-upon schedule by July 26, 2013, which they did. The court considered the joint notice, and lifted the stay on July 31, 2013. On Sept. 6, 2013, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the regulation as amended. They argued that the amended definition of "religious employer" continued to require them to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by facilitating access to contraception services. This is because the amended law's accommodations required plaintiffs to self-certify to their insurance provider, setting forth their religious objections, which in turn triggers an obligation on the part of the insurance provider to procure the services that the plaintiffs found objectionable. The plaintiffs were, thus, the but-for cause of providing contraception coverage. The plaintiffs asked the court to grant a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the relevant provisions of the ACA. On Dec. 27, 2013, District Judge Jon E. Deguilio granted the Church's motion for a preliminary injunction. 2013 WL 6843012 at *1. The court recognized that while the Diocese itself was exempt from the contraception mandate as a religious employer, the remaining affiliated organizations were subject to the self-certification accommodation as put forth in the amended regulation. The court held that the remaining plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their RFRA challenge, noting that requiring self-certification represented a substantial burden on their religious exercise by compelling them to facilitate and serve as the conduit through which objectionable contraceptive products and services are ultimately provided to their employees. The court also found that the application of the two regulations-the exemption and the accommodation-had the ultimate effect of dividing the Catholic Church into two separate entities which has created a substantial burden on the Diocese as well. The court found that the government did not show that the contraception mandate was the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, noting that were other ways to promote public health and gender equality that were not burdensome on religious liberty. On Feb. 24, 2014, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit challenging the preliminary injunction. The interlocutory appeal was assigned USCA Case No. 14-1431. On Mar. 3, 2014, the Seventh Circuit, on its own motion, ordered that the appeal be consolidated with Grace Schools v. Sebelius for purposes of briefing and disposition. Grace Schools v. Sebelius had the same legal issues as the underlying case, and the plaintiffs were underlying Grace Schools and Biola University, Inc., both Catholic non-profit organizations. On Aug. 28, 2014, the name of the case changed from Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend v. Sebelius. Sylvia Burwell was automatically substituted as petitioner in the pending Seventh Circuit appeal when she was approved by the U.S. Senate as the Secretary of Health and Human Services after being nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Kathleen Sebelius following Sebelius' resignation on Apr. 10, 2014. The appeal was argued on Dec. 3, 2014, before Circuit Judges Manion, Rovner, and Hamilton, for the Seventh Circuit. At the district court level, on Jan. 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey was added to the case, replacing Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins. On May 21, 2015, the parties were ordered to file position statements explaining the consequences of the Seventh Circuit's opinion in University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, in which the court had issued its decision two days earlier. The parties obliged. On Sept. 4, 2015, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had been forced to take actions that violated their sincerely held beliefs, but nonetheless held that the ACA's regulations did not impose a substantial burden under RFRA. The court maintained the injunction for a 60-day period in order to allow the district court adequate time to address additional arguments made by the parties but not addressed prior to the appeal. On Oct. 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. They argued that the panel decision conflicted with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014), on the question of what constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under RFRA. The court denied the plaintiffs' petition on Nov. 5, 2015. On Nov. 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a stay of mandate pending the petition for writ of certiorari, and the motion was granted the next day. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari. On June 17, 2016, it vacated the Seventh Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S.Ct. 1557 (2016). In Zubik, the Supreme Court determined through supplemental briefing that insurance companies could provide contraceptive coverage to employees of organizations that objected to such coverage on religious grounds without the organizations needing to provide notification. The Court reached no decision on the merits of the case, but vacated the case for further consideration by the lower courts to determine how to proceed in a manner that would grant employees full contraceptive coverage while also respecting the organizations' religious exercise. Between July 21, 2016 and Sept. 13, 2017, the parties filed numerous joint status reports. Meanwhile, on Feb. 2, 2017, Burwell had been substituted by Thomas E. Price, so the name of the case in the Seventh Circuit was changed to Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend v. Price. On May 4, 2017, Edward C. Hugler and Thomas E. Perez, the Acting Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Labor, respectively, were substituted by R. Alexander Acosta, the new Secretary of Labor, after he was sworn into office. On Oct. 6, 2017, the defendants moved for a voluntary dismissal of the appeal, and Circuit Judges Manion, Rovner, and Hamilton, for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals. On Oct. 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and we believe that they consented to the motion. On Oct. 19, 2017, the Seventh Circuit issued a mandate dismissing the appeal. On Oct. 23, 2017, the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to dismiss the case, and the case was dismissed the next day.

Summary: On May 21, 2012, the Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth-South Bend and affiliated Catholic organizations filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Missouri seeking to enjoin the federal government from enforcing provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs contended that mandatory contraception coverage violated their sincerely held religious beliefs. On Dec. 27, 2013, the District Judge granted the Church's motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants appealed the decision on Feb. 24, 2014, but on Dec. 23, 2017, the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to dismiss the case.


This case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts on May 16, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff claimed that the department's provision of more than a million dollars of public funds to a ministry called "The Silver Ring Thing" (SRT) that uses federal abstinence education funding to bring "unchurched" students to Jesus Christ constituted an unlawful establishment of religion and a governmental endorsement and preference for religion in general and specific tenets of the ministry in particular. The ministry developed a three hour presentation that was meant to occur directly following a mandatory abstinence education assembly in public schools and which, according to the plaintiff, was "permeated with religion." In a two-year settlement agreement entered on February 22, 2006, the defendants acknowleged that they had terminated the SRT grant effective January 31, 2006. The agreement provided that defendants would not fund SRT's abstinence eduction as it had been structured and implemented during the fiscal year 2005, that strict requirements would be made before considering funding any future proposals from SRT, and that extensive monitoring of SRT's activities would occur if SRT was given a grant.


On February 1, 2010, a Massachusetts citizen arrested for videotaping police practices filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and relevant state law, against the City of Boston and several police officers. The plaintiff, represented by an ACLU attorney and private counsel, sought monetary relief, alleging that the City of Boston failed to properly supervise, discipline, or train Boston police officers, which resulted in the plaintiff's being falsely arrested. He further claimed that the false arrest violated his rights under the First and the Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The defendant police officers arrested the plaintiff for his using of digital video camera to record their arrest of a young man in a park. One charge against the plaintiff was violation of the state wiretap statute. The judicial court dismissed the charge subsequently, because a conviction under the state wiretap statute required the recording to be secret, and the police officers admitted that the plaintiff's recording was not. On February 5, 2010, the plaintiff amended his complaint. On June 8, 2010, the Court (Judge William G. Young) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case after a hearing. Judge Young denied the defendant police officers' qualified immunity from both the plaintiff's First and Fourth Amendment claims. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit. On June 29, 2010, Judge Young denied the defendants' motion to stay proceedings in the District Court pending appeal. On the same day, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin upon both parties' consent. The Court of Appeals grant a motion to stay on August 4, 2010. On August 26, 2011, the Circuit Court (Judge Kermit V. Lipez) affirmed the lower court's ruling that denied the defendant police officers' qualified immunity from the plaintiff's constitutional claims. Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). In the opinion, Judge Lipez found that the First Amendment protected the plaintiff in filming the on-duty police officers in public and that his right to film in this case was clearly established. The defendant police officers lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights, and the lack of probable cause was clearly established, defeating the defendants' asserted qualified immunity from suit. (On September 27, 2011, the plaintiff in Strahan v. Rowley, Docket No. 1:11-cv-11235, filed a motion to consolidate his case with this case. The Strahan case was then assigned to Magistrate Judge Sorokin as well. Both the plaintiff and the defendants in this case filed oppositions to the consolidation on October 11, 2011. Magistrate Judge Sorokin denied the motion to consolidate cases on December 20, 2011, docketed only in the Strahan case.) On January 19, 2012, on remand from the First Circuit, the parties requested mediation and the case was referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution, with Chief Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein appointed as the mediator. On March 5, 2012, the parties reached a settlement through the mediation. The defendants agreed to pay $170,000 to the plaintiff for damages, attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed. This ended the case. For more information, please see the ACLU's website.

Summary: On February 1, 2010, a Massachusetts citizen arrested for videotaping police practices filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the City of Boston and several police officers. The plaintiff sought monetary relief, alleging that the City of Boston failed to properly supervise, discipline or train Boston police officers, which resulted in the plaintiff's being falsely arrested. He further claimed that the false arrest violated his rights under the First and the Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On June 8, 2010, the Court (Judge William G. Young) denied the defendant police officers' qualified immunity from the plaintiff's constitutional claims. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit regarding this denial, and later the First Circuit affirmed the denial. On June 29, 2010, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin. On January 19, 2012, the parties requested a mediation and the case was referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution. On March 5, 2012, the parties settled the case through the mediation. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed. This ended the case.


On August 29, 2011, a resident of Baltimore County filed this § 1983 claim in Maryland State Circuit Court against the Baltimore City Police Department and three unnamed police officers. The plaintiff alleged that the Police Department had a practice and policy of arresting and destroying the property of persons engaged in recording the public actions of police officers, in violation of Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also claimed that this practice amounted to a misapplication of the Wiretap Statute. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he had used his cell phone to videorecord the police arresting his friend in a public place. Three police officers subsequently arrested and detained him for the filming, confiscated his phone, and wiped all video data from the device. This action destroyed not only the video of the arrest, but also images of plaintiff's children and other personal events. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction that would bar defendants from engaging in arrest and destruction of property for video recording police actions as well as compensatory damages. On October 11, 2011, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court of Maryland. On November 30, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable cause of action or for partial summary judgment in the alternative. The Police Department argued that the plaintiffs claims were no more than speculation as to a general practice and that the Department's existing training on bystander videotaping rendered any viable claim moot. On January 10, 2012, the United States filed a Statement of Interest, arguing that the District Court should deny the Police Department's summary judgment motion. On February 17, 2012, the District Court (Judge Benson Everett Legg) denied the Police Department's motion to dismiss the case or for partial summary judgment. In his opinion, Judge Legg noted that the First Amendment protected the plaintiff's right to photograph on-duty police officers in public, and that the defendants might have violated the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights by deleting videos from the plaintiff's phone if this was done without a legitimate reason. Judge Legg further recognized the factual dispute regarding the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim: whether the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the phone to the police officers or not. Whether the Police Department promulgated or was deliberately indifferent to an illegal practice was also disputable. The claims proceeded and the parties began discovery. Settlement talks were unsuccessful and discovery disputes continued over the course of 2013 and early 2014. However, on April 7, 2014, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal which included a settlement agreement. The settlement included an award for the plaintiff of $25,000 in damages and $225,000 in attorneys fees, but the parties agreed that the payment could not be construed as an expression of liability or concession to the facts alleged. The Police Department also agreed to implement new policies that would properly preserve citizens' rights to record and provide training for officers on the right. On April 11, 2014, the stipulation of dismissal was granted by Judge Catherine C. Blake. The case was dismissed with prejudice subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the settlement agreement. The case is now closed.

Summary: On October 11, 2011, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the Baltimore City Police Department and three unnamed police officers after they allegedly arrested and destroyed recordings he had taken of them arresting his friend. After many years of failed negotiations and discovery disputes, on April 7, 2014, the parties settled the case with terms favorable to the plaintiff.


On September 10, 2008, a non-profit religious organization, Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Elk River Area School District #728. The plaintiff, represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel and private counsel, sought injunctive, monetary, and declaratory relief, alleging that the School District's denial of the plaintiff's request to attend school open house events and distribute its literature violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights to freedom of speech, equal protection, and free exercise, and also violated the Establishment Clause. On February 6, 2009, the District Court (Judge Ann D. Montgomery) granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the District from implementing its policy that disallowed the plaintiff to distribute literature to students and attend school open house events for the advertisement of its religious program for children. Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota v. Elk River Area Sch. Dist. #728, 599 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Minn. 2009). In addition, Judge Montgomery denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The matter then settled, and on February 26, 2010, the Court (Judge Montgomery) ordered the case dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to their stipulation. The defendant had withdrawn the district policy at issue and paid attorneys' fees to the plaintiff's attorneys, and agreed not to reinstate the policy. This ended the case.

Summary: On September 10, 2008, a non-profit religious organization, Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minnesota, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota against the Elk River Area School District #728. The plaintiff alleged that the School District's denial of the plaintiff's request to attend school open house events and distribute its literature violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including under rights to freedom of speech, equal protection, and free exercise, and against establishment of religion. On February 6, 2009, the District Court (Judge Ann D. Montgomery) granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendant from implementing the district's policy that disallowed the plaintiff to distribute literature to students and attend school open house events for the advertisement of its religious program for children. The case then settled; the school district withdrew the policy at issue and paid the plaintiffs' attorneys fees. On February 24, 2010, the case was dismissed on joint stipulation.


On May 21, 2012, the Archdiocese of St. Louis and an affiliated charity filed a U.S. District Court lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri against the Federal Government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Plaintiffs contended that this mandatory contraception coverage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. On January 29, 2013, Judge John A. Ross granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court noted that because the contraception mandate was in the process of being amended, as noted by the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), in its present form mandate represent only a tentative agency position and are therefore not ripe for review. The Archdiocese similarly lacked standing for not alleging any imminent injury. Plaintiffs' case was dismissed without prejudice.

Summary: On May 21, 2012, the Archdiocese of St. Louis and an affiliated charity filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri against the Federal Government seeking to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Plaintiffs contend that this mandatory contraception coverage violates their sincerely held religious beliefs. On January 29, 2013, Judge John A. Ross granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for lack of ripeness.


On December 12, 2012, a for-profit general business corporation, its owner, and two employees filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri against the federal government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.). Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought to enjoin enforcement of provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) extending universal contraception coverage in employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Plaintiffs contend that this mandatory contraception coverage conflicted with their sincerely held religious beliefs and violated the First Amendment. The parties consented to adjudication by a magistrate judge, and on December 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge David Noce granted a temporary restraining order stopping the federal government from enforcing the contraception mandate. 2012 WL 6738489. This order was renewed on January 14, 2013 until the Court determined the merits of plaintiffs' case and whether further injunctive relief was needed. On June 14, 2013, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add three additional plaintiffs, including non-profit corporation  CNS International Ministries (FA-MO-0011 in this Clearinghouse), and on June 28, 2013, Magistrate Judge David Noce extended preliminary relief to the newly added plaintiffs. On September 30, 2013, Judge Noce granted the defendants' motion to stay the case proceedings pending Eight Circuit rulings on two similar cases, Annex Medical, Inc v. Sebelius, No. 13-1118 and O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, No. 12-3357. Judge Noce also extended the earlier preliminary injunction for all parties. On December 4, 2013, the plaintiffs amended their complaint again in response to updates to the contraceptive mandate implementing regulation which were finalized on July 2, 2013. Plaintiffs argued that by making "an accommodation" for religious non-profits wherein third party insurance administrators instead provide contraceptive materials, the new regulation was more like a "shell game" because the non-profit employees would still receive coverage through their employment at these non-profits. On December 30, 2013, Judge Noce ordered the earlier preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order be sustained as to non-profit and for-profit plaintiffs alike. 2013 WL 6858588. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal with the Eighth Circuit, against the district court's preliminary injunction, arguing that the third party insurance providers had an independent obligation under the ACA to provide contraceptive coverage to religious non-profit employees. The defendants further argued that, even if there were a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, the accommodation was the least restrictive means possible to accomplish its compelling interest in ensuring access to no-cost contraceptive coverage. In district court, Judge Noce entered a permanent injunction on February 13, 2015 against the defendants, prohibiting them from enforcing the July 2013 version of the contraception mandate against all plaintiffs. The district court stated that following the Supreme Court's June 2014 holding in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violated RFRA when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. On June 17, 2015, the district court also awarded attorney fees and costs for the for-profit plaintiffs. 2015 WL 3773426. On September 17, 2015, the Eighth Circuit ruled on the defendants' February 2014 appeal, affirming the district court's preliminary injunctive relief for the non-profit plaintiffs. 801 F.3d 927. The Eighth Circuit rejected the defendants' arguments, but it did not address the First Amendment claims because it concluded that religious non-profits were entitled to relief based on the RFRA claims. The court accepted the the plaintiff's argument that they would be forced to violate their religious beliefs by complying with either the contraceptive mandate or the accommodation process or to incur severe monetary penalties for refusing to comply. The Eighth Circuit cited a Supreme Court injunction issued in Wheaton College v. Sebelius on July 3, 2014, which held that the nonprofit accommodation process, requiring the objecting organization to notify their insurer, or provide specifications about their employee insurance to HHS, could be satisfied by a general notification to HHS of their religious views. 134 S.Ct. 2806. On October 9, 2015, the district court entered a final judgment against the government and in favor of the for-profit plaintiffs. 2015 WL 13664031. Judge Noce wrote that the non-profit portion of this case would likely continue through to an appeal given the Circuit split on the application of the ACA's birth control mandate to non-profits, but that the decision would not likely affect the resolution for the for-profit plaintiffs. The defendants petitioned for certiorari, and on May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court granted cert and vacated the Eighth Circuit's ruling, remanding the case. 2016 WL 2842448. The Court ordered that the case be considered under its per curiam order in Zubik v. Burwell [II] that ordered lower courts to give religious nonprofits and the government time to come to agreement on an approach that "accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage." 136 S.Ct 1557. The case was held in abeyance from March 1, 2017 until October 6, 2017. The parties filed status reports requesting the case be held until the new Trump Administration issued orders on the contraception mandate. On October 6, 2017, the Trump Administration issued an order that would no longer require employers to provide contraception if they had religious objections. See the New York Times for more information. As a result, also on October 6, the defendants moved to dismiss the case. The motion was granted on October 13, 2017. The issue of attorney's fees and costs was remanded to the district court on December 5, 2017. In accord with the Eighth Circuit order, on October 17, 2017, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by November 13, 2017 on the status of the case and any further proceedings. On October 25, 2017, the defendants were ordered to pay $252.68 for the bill of costs taxed. On November 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a status report summarizing the litigation and stating that the plaintiffs intended to file a dispositive motion for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. The defendants intend to oppose this motion because they viewed the issue as moot. On November 17, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief. In the motion the plaintiffs requested the current injunctive relief be granted permanently. The defendants opposed the motion because they found the issue moot given the Trump administration's order to not enforce the contraception mandate against employers with religious objections. On December 5, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to award attorney's fees in accordance with 42 USC § 1988 with themselves as the prevailing party. The plaintiffs requested the court award them $408,110 for attorney's fees and $1,753.72 in out-of-pocket expenses. On December 7, 2017, the court ordered the defendants to file a response to the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees by December 29, 2017. On December 12, 2017, the court ordered a hearing to be held on January 26, 2018 on the issue of the plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction. On January 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to have the court rule on the issue of the permanent injunction without a hearing. This motion was granted on January 26, 2018. On March 28, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief. 2018 WL 1520031. The court declared the contraceptive mandate in the ACA to be a violation of RFRA and enjoined the government from enforcing the mandate. On August 9, 2018, the court ordered that the defendants pay $394,000 in attorney's fees and $1,753.72 in expenses. 2018 WL 3772223. The case is now closed.

Summary: In 2012, a for-profit general business corporation and its owners filed this lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri against the Federal Government challenging the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. In 2014, the plaintiffs added three additional plaintiffs including two non-profit corporations. In 2015, the for-profit plaintiffs won a permanent injunction against the mandate, but in May 2016 the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case following its decision in Zubik v. Burwell [II]. The district court ultimately granted the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction. The case is now closed.


This is one of twelve cases filed on May 21, 2012 in federal district courts across the country by Catholic organizations challenging the contraception mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Plaintiffs, a non-profit corporation of Catholic parishes, schools, and charities, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the Federal Government under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the ACA extending universal contraception coverage to employer-sponsored private health insurance coverage. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that providing, paying for, or facilitating access to such services is inconsistent with its religious beliefs and contend that compliance with the contraception requirement is a substantial burden on their religious exercise. On December 20, 2012, the court (Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden) granted the Federal Government's motion to dismiss for lack of ripeness. The court noted that because the contraception mandate was in the process of being amended, as noted by the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), in its present form the mandate represent only a tentative agency position and was therefore not ripe for review. Plaintiffs' case was dismissed without prejudice. 2012 WL 6831407. On January 8, 2013, plaintiffs moved to alter the courts' judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the basis that failure to do so would result in manifest injustice. They asked the court to hold the case in abeyance pending the ANPRM amendments or require the Federal Government to file regular status reports on the progress of these amendments. On February 15, 2013, the court (Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden) denied plaintiff's motion, noting that plaintiffs had not requested these alternatives before final judgment and holding that dismissal without prejudice did not create a manifest injustice on them. 2013 WL 690990. The plaintiffs renewed their case on May 27, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Docket No. 1:14-cv-00146-LG-JCG. The complaint challenged the ACA as finalized. Plaintiffs alleged that, although under the amended ACA the Diocese itself likely fell within the "religious employer" exception, affiliated Catholic entities were only considered "eligible organizations" qualifying for an accommodation. This accommodation would require plaintiffs to provide self-certification to their insurance provider setting forth their religious objections to the ACA, in turn triggering an obligation on the part of the insurance provider to procure the services plaintiffs find objectionable. According to the plaintiffs, this series of events made them the but-for cause of providing contraception coverage in violation of their sincerely held beliefs. Plaintiffs continued to ask the court to grant a permanent injunction against enforcement of the relevant provisions of the ACA. On November 7, 2014, the parties moved to stay proceedings in this case pending the Fifth Circuit's decision in consolidated appeals--East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell, No. 14-20112, University of Dallas v. Burwell, No. 14-10241, Catholic Diocese of Beaumont v. Burwell, No. 14-40212, and Catholic Charities, Diocese of Fort Worth v. Burwell, No. 14-10661--raising substantially similar legal issues to those in this case. The court granted the motion to stay on November 24, 2014. On June 22, 2015, the Fifth Circuit (Judges Jerry E. Smith, Thomas M. Reavley, and James E. Graves) held that the ACA provisions challenged in the consolidated appeals did not violate the plaintiffs' rights under RFRA. 793 F. 3d 449. On November 6, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for the Fifth Circuit consolidated appeals, consolidating the case with similar cases dealing with the issue in other circuit courts. Together, the cases are known as Zubik v. Burwell [II]. This case was argued in the Supreme Court on March 23, 2016. On March 29, 2016, in an unusual move, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs suggesting a solution to their disagreement, in which employees could still receive contraception coverage without employers giving any notice to the government. On May 16, 2016, the Court issued a per curiam order remanding all seven cases to their respective courts of appeals, ordering the lower courts to give the parties time to come to agreement on an approach that that "accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'" 136 S.Ct 1557, 1560. The Court took no position on the merits of the case. The parties requested another stay pending the proceedings in the Fifth Circuit on the remand of the consolidated appeals, and on March 8, 2017, the court administratively closed the case pending disposition of the Fifth Circuit proceedings. Following a change in administration, and an executive order directing a change in regulations to allow for conscience-based exceptions to the ACA's contraceptive-care mandate, and the parties in this case filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on October 23, 2017.

Summary: This is one of twelve cases filed on May 21, 2012 in federal district courts across the country by Catholic organizations challenging the contraception mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Plaintiffs, a non-profit corporation of Catholic parishes, schools, and charities, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the Federal Government under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) asking the court to grant a permanent injunction against enforcement of the contraception mandate.


On Sept. 12, 2012, a family of evangelical Christian business owners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asked the court for both declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that federal rules adopted pursuant to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA") violated their sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them to provide coverage for contraception through their companies' group health insurance plans. Specifically, the plaintiffs objected to the ACA rules requiring them to provide coverage for emergency contraception, which the plaintiffs considered an abortifacient. The plaintiffs did not object to other forms of contraception. Claiming that providing coverage for emergency contraception would both contravene their Christian faith and compel speech contrary to their beliefs, the plaintiffs sought an exemption from the ACA's contraception mandate for themselves and other business owners with similar religious objections. On October 15, 2012, the District Court (Judge Joe Heaton) denied a group of current members of Congress leave to file an amicus curiae brief arguing for a broad application of RFRA. Judge Heaton found that the interests of the Congressmen coincided wholly with the interests of the plaintiffs, and that additional submissions addressing the application of RFRA were unnecessary. In their brief opposing the injunction motion, filed October 22, 2012, the defendant Departments argued that the contraception mandate did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious liberty rights under RFRA, and that, regardless of the burden's magnitude, the regulations were the least restrictive means of advancing the government's compelling interests in public health and gender equality. The brief further argued that the mandate did not violate the plaintiff's religious freedom because it was a neutral law of general applicability. On November 19, 2012, the District Court (Judge Heaton) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby did not have a constitutional right to religious freedom, and that the individual plaintiffs were not likely to prevail because the mandate was a neutral law of general applicability that was reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose. The Court further found that indirect financial support of subjectively objectionable conduct was not a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious freedom. Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 (W.D. Okla. 2012). The plaintiffs appealed the injunction denial to the 10th Circuit. On December 12, 2012, District Court Judge Heaton granted the defendants' joint motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the 10th Circuit appeal. On December 20, 2012, the Court of Appeals (Judge Carlos F. Lucero and Judge David M. Ebel) denied the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal on the same grounds as the District Court's injunction denial. Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 6930302 (10th Cir.). Following this denial, the plaintiffs applied to the Circuit Justice for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for an injunction pending appellate review. On December 26, 2012, Justice Sotomayor denied this application, finding that the plaintiffs' entitlement to injunctive relief was not indisputably clear. Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, 133 S.Ct. 641 (2012). On March 29, 2013, the 10th Circuit granted initial and expedited en banc review. That is, the Court decided to hear the case not via ordinary panel process, with rehearing en banc as a subsequent possibility, but rather initially in front of all the circuit's judges. Oral arguments occurred May 23, 2013. On June 27, 2013, the 10th Circuit, en banc, reversed the District Court's injunction denial, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to bring RFRA claims; that they had established a likelihood of successfully proving that the contraception mandate substantially burdened their RFRA rights; and that they had demonstrated irreparable harm. The 10th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court, asking the lower court to address two remaining prongs of the injunction inquiry (balance of equities and the effect on the public interest) and to decide whether to grant or deny the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 2013 WL 3216103 (10th Cir. en banc). The plaintiffs immediately filed an emergency motion asking the District Court to grant a temporary injunction pending the full injunction hearing. The District Court (Judge Heaton) granted this motion on June 28, 2013, followed up by a longer-lasting order on July 19, 2013 WL 3869832. The government sought certiorari review of the 10th Circuit decision in the Supreme Court; cert was granted on November 26, 2013. The Supreme Court consolidated this case with Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, a similar case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed. In 5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA, when applied to closely-held for-profit corporations. The Court emphasized, however, that alternative methods for meeting the government's asserted interest were available. To quote the syllabus (which summarizes the opinion), "the Government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers' religious objections. Or it could extend the accommodation that HHS has already established for religious nonprofit organizations to non-profit employers with religious objections to the contraceptive mandate. That accommodation does not impinge on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion and it still serves HHS's stated interests." In addition, the Court insisted that its opinion was narrow: "This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (although Breyer and Kagan did not sign on to a few pages of the dissent that argued that for-profit corporations lacked rights under RFRA; they said this issue need not yet be decided). Please note that this case was previously titled Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Sylvia Burwell was automatically substituted as petitioner when she was approved by the U.S. Senate as the Secretary of Health and Human Services after being nominated by President Barack Obama to replace Kathleen Sebelius following Sebelius' resignation on Apr. 10, 2014.

Summary: In 2012, evangelical Christian business owners filed a RFRA challenge to rules adopted pursuant to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, arguing that the rules infringed on their religious freedom by requiring them to provide coverage for emergency contraception through their group health insurance plan. In November 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the contraception mandate did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious freedom. The 10th Circuit granted expedited en banc review, and oral arguments occurred on May 23. On June 27, 2013, the 10th Circuit reversed the District Court's injunction denial and sent the case back to the District Court, with instructions to consider two prongs of the injunction inquiry and to rule on the plaintiffs' injunction motion. The next day, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary injunction pending the full injunction hearing. The Supreme Court granted cert., and on June 30, 2014, affirmed the 10th Circuit. The Court said other ways were open to the government to reach its asserted interest of ensuring the availability of contraception coverage.