ILNews

'Contraception mandate' goes before SCOTUS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

A Madison family business is at the forefront of a legal challenge the Supreme Court of the United States will conference over Nov. 26 – whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “contraception mandate” violates the religious liberties of company owners whose faith proscribes birth control.

The Roman Catholic owners of Grote Industries, which manufactures vehicle safety systems, objected to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers provide universal access to contraception. Grote’s owners won a divided 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Nov. 8 blocking enforcement of the mandate, the farthest-reaching holding among a host of cases rising through the federal judiciary.

contraception-grotefactoryshot-15col.jpg A worker at Madison-based Grote Industries examines a product in a company lab. The maker of vehicle safety systems won an injunction blocking enforcement of the Affordable Care Act contraception mandate because of company owners’ religious beliefs. (Photo submitted)

“The Grote family has run its business for over a century and simply wants to earn a living consistent with its faith commitments and duties to God,” said Matt Bowman, senior counsel at the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, who successfully argued on behalf of the Indiana company owners before the federal appellate court.

“Obamacare imposes massive penalties on families for providing generous benefits just because those families refuse to sign on to the government’s anti-life, anti-pregnancy agenda,” Bowman said in an interview after the ruling.

The 7th Circuit opinion in two consolidated cases – William D. Grote III, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., 13-1077, and Cyril B. Korte, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., 12-3841 – is the first federal court opinion formally affirming the grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the mandate.

Other circuits have split, and at a conference Nov. 26, the Supreme Court will have before it cert petitions on these cases that also challenge the contraception mandate:

Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 13-482, a 6th Circuit opinion affirming the District Court, which rejected standing on religious liberty claims for the Roman Catholic owners of a Michigan company who argued penalties under the mandate would have ruinous consequences for the business;

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 13-356, a 3rd Circuit ruling denying a preliminary injunction for Mennonite owners of a Pennsylvania maker of cabinet parts, and;

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, 13-354, a 10th Circuit decision remanding denial of a preliminary injunction for owners of a crafts-store chain organized with express religious principles, but which sought to qualify the kinds of companies that may claim religious exemptions.

Bowman’s group also represents the Conestoga plaintiffs and believes the 7th Circuit’s recent decision is bound to have some bearing on the justices’ deliberations. “It demonstrates that the majority of courts have recognized religious freedom,” he said.

Court watchers believe that one or more of the challenges may be added to the cases to be heard in spring 2014. Bowman expects Grote also will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

All of the suits in some way invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but the majority of the 7th Circuit found not just that Act implicated, but agreed that the Grotes’ First and Fifth Amendment rights would be violated by the contraception mandate.

“The plaintiffs are not asking the government to pay for anything. They are asking for relief from a regulatory mandate that coerces them to pay for something – insurance coverage for contraception – on the sincere conviction that doing so violates their religion,” Circuit Judge Diane Sykes wrote in the majority opinion joined by Judge Joel Flaum. “They have made a strong case that RFRA entitles them to that relief.”

The majority held that the Grotes “have a direct and personal interest in vindicating their individual religious-liberty rights, even though the rights of their closely held corporations are also at stake.”

But in a dissent of more than 90 pages, Judge Ilana Rovner wrote that the ruling “represents a dramatic turn in free exercise jurisprudence” that could open the door to a host of challenges to federal regulations based on individual religious beliefs.

The opinion “bestows a highly personal right to religious exercise on two secular, for-profit corporations that have no facility of thought, conscience or belief,” Rovner wrote. “It deems the religious rights of the plaintiffs burdened by the contraception mandate without consideration of the indirect and minimal intrusion on their exercise of religion. And it disregards the extent to which the exemption from the mandate burdens the rights of the plaintiffs’ employees.”

Rovner said the majority’s holding hypothetically could prevent employees from obtaining embryonic stem-cell therapy; allow Christian Scientist business owners to severely restrict access to medical care pursuant to limits based on their beliefs; or deny coverage to same-sex couples even in states that permit such unions, if the corporation’s owners have a religious objection to same-sex marriage.

johnsen-dawn-mug Johnsen

“You could write 20 more like that,” Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Dawn Johnsen said of the cautionary hypotheticals. She acknowledges a personal feeling that the dissent is correct in the 7th Circuit opinion, but she said the majority opinion also was thorough and impressive.

Johnsen argues that because it’s the employee’s choice to use contraception rather than an employer’s, the employer’s religious liberties aren’t “substantially burdened,” as required under RFRA. “Given that indirectness, how attenuated that is, it would be a true slippery slope to find this to be a substantial burden,” she said.

The Supreme Court “has to resolve this very dramatic split among the circuits,” Johnsen said. “This, I’d say, is going to be a closely divided court and it’s very difficult to guess which way it’s more likely to go.”

Justices are likely to take at least one of the cases from the Nov. 26 conference, Johnsen said, but they also likely will cite and rely on the 7th Circuit holding. She said all the key issues can be reached in the cases already before the court. She believes it’s unlikely the court would delay acting on at least one of the current petitions.

“The main issues include the status of the corporation both in holding rights and in having standing to assert rights, and then (rights of) the owners of the corporation,” Johnsen said.

On those issues, the 3rd Circuit held in Conestoga that “a for-profit, secular corporation cannot engage in the exercise of religion” and its owners have no claim against the contraception mandate. A related Federal Circuit ruling, meanwhile, held that for-profit corporations may not challenge the law on religious grounds, but that companies organized differently with individual owners may, according to the 7th Circuit’s opinion.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • On target
    John Smith .... direct hit. I made a similar argument to the SCOTUS after the Ind S.Ct. upheld an allegedly religiously biased conclusion of the BLE. See the section of this brief on free exercise and the establishment clause. http://www.scribd.com/doc/109518279/Brownv-ind-S-ct-BoardLawExams Our governing structures are a series of Christian Republics that assumed a foundation in the common view of God's overriding provision for and endorsement of the state. We have evolved (devolved) into a series of secular states ruled over by a largely unelectable bureaucratic elite bent on scrubbing the past to control the present and thus forge the future. Conflict is a predictable result.
  • american slogans disproven again
    Obviously in cases like these the shibboleth "diversity is our strength" is disproven with stark clarity. Diversity of religious belief clearly leads to a lot of strife and upset that places with religious homogeneaity do not experience. And other odd results like where our government's feigned religious neutrality becomes itself the tool of suppressing certain sects. Sects which are usually always one iteration of serious Christians or another.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT