ILNews

7th Circuit grants injunction in company’s suit against providing employees contraceptives

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a case out of Madison, Ind., to be nearly identical to one out of Southern Illinois challenging the federal mandate that employers must provide contraceptives to employees despite religious objections, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction Wednesday.

The appellate court issued its order in William D. Grote III, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, 13-1077, overturning Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s refusal to grant the Grote family’s request for a preliminary injunction pending appeal against the enforcement of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and related regulations that require Grote Industries to provide contraception and sterilization procedures in its group health insurance plan.

The Grotes object to providing this coverage for their employees through their self-insured plan because it conflicts with the family’s Catholic beliefs. In their lawsuit, they assert claims under the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as claims alleging violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the mandate, the company had to begin providing coverage Jan. 1.

The day after Barker denied the Grotes’ motion, the 7th Circuit issued a preliminary injunction in Korte v. Sebelius, 12-3841, pending appeal. The Kortes also sued claiming the mandate violates the RFRA. The 7th Circuit found the Kortes established a reasonable likelihood of success on their RFRA claim and the harm to the Kortes’ religious liberty rights outweighed the temporary harm to the government’s interest of providing greater access to health care.

Judges Joel Flaum and and Diane Sykes found no material distinction between the cases and consolidated them for appeal.  

Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner dissented, believing the appellants haven’t shown they are reasonably likely to prevail on the merits of their claims and expanded on the doubts she expressed in Korte.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT