Tenth Circuit Denies Religious Companies an Injunction on Affordable Care Act Contraception Rule

A chain arts and crafts store and its affiliated Christian bookstore business (plaintiffs) disputed the contraception rule under the Affordable Care Act claiming that it violates their constitutional rights in forcing businesses to offer insurance coverage for “abortion inducing drugs and devices.” The plaintiffs claimed that the rule violated the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993(RFRA). Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for an injunction pending resolution of the appeal.

After briefing and a hearing, the district court denied the motion finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to such relief. This court affirmed.

The contraception rule under the Affordable Care Act requires employers’ group health plans to cover contraceptives and sterilization procedures approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The contraception mandate goes into effect on January 1, 2013. The plaintiffs claimed that this rule violates their constitutional rights and RFRA and infringes on their rights to make a living while staying true to their faith.

This court noted that in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show: a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable injury will result if the injunction does not issue; the threatened injury outweighs any damage the injunction may cause the opposing party; and the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

The court found that the injunction was not warranted as the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the standard on the first element of their RFRA claim because the challenged mandate did not “substantially burden [their] exercise of religion.” The court agreed with the district court in finding that the potential infringements on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs were too indirect and attenuated to establish the necessary substantial burden. The court quoted the district court stating that “the particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by the plaintiff’s religion…” The court noted that other cases enforcing RFRA have done so to protect a plaintiff’s own participation in a practice by his religion.