Priests For Life, Et Al., v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Et Al.

APPEAL,TYPE-L
U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-01261-EGS
PRIESTS FOR LIFE et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
Assigned to: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
Cause: 42:2000 Religion
Date Filed: 08/19/2013
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Plaintiff
PRIESTS FOR LIFE represented by David Eliezer Yerushalmi
American Freedom Law Center
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20006
(646) 262-0500
Fax: (801) 760-3901
Email: david.yerushalmi@verizon.net
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Muise
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 131098
Ann Arbor, MI 48113
(734) 635-3756
Fax: (801) 760-3901
Email:
rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
Plaintiff
FATHER FRANK PAVONE represented by David Eliezer Yerushalmi
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert J. Muise
Plaintiff
ALVEDA KING represented by David Eliezer Yerushalmi
LEAD ATTORNEY
District of Columbia live database
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
USCA Case #13-5368 Document #1471416 Filed: 12/19/2013 Page 1 of 57
Robert J. Muise
Plaintiff
JANET MORANA represented by David Eliezer Yerushalmi
LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert J. Muise
V.
Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
represented by Benjamin Leon Berwick
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 305-8573
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: benjamin.l.berwick@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
in her official capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
THE TREASURY
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
JACOB J. LEW
in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of the Treasury
LEAD ATTORNEY
Defendant
LABOR
LEAD ATTORNEY
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
Defendant
THOMAS E. PEREZ
in his official capacity as Secretary, U.S.
Department of Labor
LEAD ATTORNEY
Amicus
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION
represented by Daniel Mach
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
915 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 548-6604
Fax: (202) 546-0738
Email: dmach@aclu.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/19/2013 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3437070)
filed by ALVEDA KING, FRANK PAVONE, JANET MORANA, PRIESTS FOR LIFE.
(Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, #3 Summons HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, #4 Summons U.S.
Department of the Treasury, #5 Summons Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, #6
Summons U.S. Department of Labor, #7 Summons Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez, #
8 Summons U.S. Attorney General, #9 Summons U.S. Attorney)(Muise, Robert)
(Entered: 08/19/2013)
08/19/2013 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise, Robert) (Entered:
08/19/2013)
08/19/2013 Case Assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (md, ) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
08/19/2013 3 NOTICE of Appearance by David Eliezer Yerushalmi on behalf of ALVEDA KING,
JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Yerushalmi, David)
(Entered: 08/19/2013)
08/20/2013 4 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED (8) as to JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ,
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney
General (Attachments: #1 Summons 2nd, #2 Summons 3rd, #3 Summons 4th, #4
Summons 5th, #5 Summons 6th, #6 Summons 7th, #7 Summons 8th, #8 Notice of
Consent, #9 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
09/06/2013 5 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JACOB J.
LEW served on 8/28/2013; THOMAS E. PEREZ served on 8/26/2013; KATHLEEN
SEBELIUS served on 8/26/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES served on 8/26/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
LABOR served on 8/26/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
served on 8/28/2013, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint
Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States
Attorney General 8/27/2013., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and
Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United
States Attorney on 8/27/2013. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by
10/26/2013.) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 09/06/2013)
09/16/2013 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin Leon Berwick on behalf of All Defendants
(Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
09/19/2013 7 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK
PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1--Declaration of Father
Pavone / Priests for Life, #2 Exhibit 2--Declaration of Dr. Alveda King, #3 Exhibit
3--Declaration of Janet Morana, #4 Text of Proposed Order)(Muise, Robert) (Entered:
09/19/2013)
09/20/2013 MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed to place a joint conference call to chambers
at 3:00 p.m. on September 24, 2013, for an on-the-record conference call to discuss
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The dial-in number for the conference
call is (800) 423-1988 and the passcode is 1623943. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
on September 20, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
09/20/2013 MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted chambers and represented that
government counsel consents to his request to reschedule the conference call to
September 25, 2013. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the conference call is
rescheduled to September 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM. The parties are directed to place a joint
conference call to chambers that time for an on-the-record conference call to discuss
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The dial-in number for the conference
call is (800) 423-1988 and the passcode is 1623943. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
on September 20, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
09/23/2013 Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 9/25/2013 03:30 PM in Courtroom
24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
09/25/2013 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Telephone
Conference held on 9/25/2013. Status Conference set for 11/26/2013 at 10:00 AM in
Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Order To Be Issued. (Court Reporter
BRYAN WAYNE.) (mac) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
09/25/2013 MINUTE ORDER. During the scheduling conference held on the record September 25,
2013, the parties agreed to consolidate the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction
with the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). The parties are directed
to comply with the following briefing schedule. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for
summary judgment and a statement of undisputed material facts by no later than
October 1, 2013. Plaintiffs may incorporate by reference their preliminary injunction
filings. Defendants' combined opposition to plaintiffs' motion and cross motion to
dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than
October 11, 2013. Plaintiffs shall file their combined reply in support of their motion for
summary judgment and opposition to Defendants' cross motion by no later than October
25, 2013. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their cross motion by no later
than November 8, 2013. Within one business day of each of the filings, the parties shall
deliver to the chambers of the Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan two copies of their
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
pleadings and exhibits as well as binders containing one copy of the principal points and
authorities relied upon (i.e., counsel should provide copies of principal cases, statutes,
regulations, etc. but need not provide copies of cases relied upon merely for the
standard of review or other well established principles). The Court will hold a hearing
on the cross motions November 26, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 24A.Signed by
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 25, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
09/26/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiff Summary Judgment motion due by 10/1/2013.
Defendant's Response or Combined Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due
by 10/11/2013. Plaintiff's Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by
10/25/2013. Defendant's Reply in support of cross motion due by 11/8/2013. Status
Conference set for 11/26/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
10/01/2013 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment by ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK
PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Attachments: #1 Statement of Facts, #2 Exhibit
Declaration of Robert J. Muise with Exhibits A through D)(Muise, Robert) (Entered:
10/01/2013)
10/01/2013 9 MOTION to Stay All Deadlines Pending Restoration of Appropriations by JACOB J.
LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
(Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
10/01/2013 10 RESPONSE re 9 MOTION to Stay All Deadlines Pending Restoration of
Appropriations filed by ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE,
PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
10/02/2013 11 ORDER denying 9 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 2,
2013. (lcegs1) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
10/17/2013 12 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Notice of Filing by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E.
PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Attachments: #1 Certification of
Administrative Record, #2 Index of Administrative Record)(Berwick, Benjamin)
(Entered: 10/17/2013)
10/17/2013 13 Memorandum in opposition to re 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JACOB J.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.
(Attachments: #1 Statement of Facts Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of
Facts)(Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
10/17/2013 14 MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , Cross MOTION
for Summary Judgment by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN
SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Attachments: #1 Statement of Facts, #2
Memorandum in Support, #3 Text of Proposed Order)(Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered:
10/17/2013)
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
10/21/2013 15 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial
Interests by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (Mach, Daniel) (Entered:
10/21/2013)
10/21/2013 16 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief, #2 Text of Proposed Order)
(Mach, Daniel) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
10/22/2013 NOTICE OF ERROR re 16 Motion for Leave to File; emailed to dmach@aclu.org, cc'd
7 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. DO NOT
REFILE-When adding parties, addresses are never added (jf, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
10/22/2013 17 RESPONSE re 16 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief re ACLU filed by
ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE.
(Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Yerushalmi, David) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
10/25/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 16 Motion for Leave to File Memorandum as Amicus
Curiae. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union is GRANTED, and the Clerk shall accept the amicus curiae brief for filing in this
case. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the brief, if
any, on or before November 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October
25, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
10/25/2013 18 AMICUS BRIEF by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. (jf, ) (Entered:
10/27/2013)
10/28/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Opposition due by 11/1/2013. (mac) (Entered:
10/28/2013)
10/31/2013 19 RESPONSE re 14 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
filed by ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE.
(Attachments: #1 Statement of Facts Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Statement of
Material Facts, #2 Exhibit 5--Supplemental Declaration of Priests for Life, #3 Exhibit
6--Supplemental Declaration of Robert J. Muise w/ Exhibits A through D)(Muise,
Robert) Modified on 10/31/2013 (jf, ). (Entered: 10/31/2013)
10/31/2013 8 as the motion (jf, ) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
10/31/2013 20 REPLY to opposition to motion re 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise,
Robert) (Entered: 10/31/2013)
11/01/2013 MINUTE ORDER. In view of the D.C. Circuit's decision issued today in Gilardi v. HHS,
Case 13-5069, the parties are hereby directed to address the impact, vel non, of the
decision on this case. The parties shall file submissions, not to exceed ten pages each,
by no later than November 5, 2013 at noon. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan on November 1, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
11/01/2013 21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Briefs Addressing the Impact of Gilardi v.
HHS by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
(Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
11/02/2013 MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to address the impact
of Gilardi v. HHS. The defendants shall address the decision in their reply in support of
their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs shall address the
decision in a separate brief not to exceed 10 pages, to be filed by no later than
November 12, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 2, 2013.
(lcegs4) (Entered: 11/02/2013)
11/04/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Submissions due by 11/5/2013. (mac) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
11/12/2013 22 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Order, directing the parties to address the
impact of Gilardi v U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services on the case filed by
ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise,
Robert) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
11/12/2013 23 REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JACOB J. LEW,
THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Berwick, Benjamin)
(Entered: 11/12/2013)
11/15/2013 MINUTE ORDER. Due to unforeseen circumstances, including the briefing delays
which occurred as a result of the government shut down, the motions hearing in this
matter is hereby rescheduled to December 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A. The
Court regrets any inconvenience to the parties. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet
G. Sullivan on November 15, 2013. (lcegs1) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
11/19/2013 24 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by ALVEDA KING, JANET
MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Muise, Robert) (Entered:
11/19/2013)
MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Muise, Robert) (Entered:
11/25/2013)
11/25/2013 26 RESPONSE re 24 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by JACOB J.
11/26/2013 MINUTE ORDER. The Court, sua sponte, directs the parties to address the impact on
this case, vel non, of the Supreme Court's grant of the petitions for certiorari in the
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases. The parties shall file brief memoranda, not to
exceed four pages, addressing this question by no later than December 3, 2013 at 4:00
PM. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 26, 2013.
11/27/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Brief Memoranda due by 12/3/2013. (mac) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
12/02/2013 28 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Order, directing the parties to address the
impact, vel non, of the U.S. Supreme Court granting petitions for writs of certiorari in
Hobby Lobby & Conestoga cases filed by ALVEDA KING, JANET MORANA,
FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
12/03/2013 29 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, directing the parties to address
the impact, vel non, of the U.S. Supreme Court granting petitions for writs of
certiorari in Hobby Lobby & Conestoga cases filed by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E.
PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Berwick, Benjamin) (Entered:
12/03/2013)
12/08/2013 MINUTE ORDER. In light of the ongoing snow and ice storm which is expected to last
through Sunday night, the Court, sua sponte, reschedules the hearing currently
scheduled for December 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM to December 9, 2013 at 12:00 PM in
Courtroom 24A. PLEASE NOTE THE TIME CHANGE. Signed by Judge Emmet G.
Sullivan on December 8, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/08/2013)
12/09/2013 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Motion Hearing
held on 12/9/2013 re 14 MOTION to Dismiss 8 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 7
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Court Reporter BRYAN WAYNE.) (mac)
(Entered: 12/09/2013)
12/10/2013 30 NOTICE of Proposed Language for Injunction Per the Court's Request by ALVEDA
KING, JANET MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Muise, Robert)
(Entered: 12/10/2013)
12/12/2013 MINUTE ORDER. During the motions hearing on December 9, 2013, the government
raised for the first time statutory/regulatory provisions which, according to the
government, provide that if Priests for Life does not elect to proceed under the
accommodations to the contraceptive services mandate, its issuer will be required to
provide the coverage under Priests for Life's plan of benefits and may charge Priests for
Life the costs of the coverage. The government is directed to file a supplemental
memorandum identifying the relevant provisions, explaining their operation, and setting
forth the consequences, if any, that they have on any portion of this case. The
government shall file its memorandum, not to exceed 5 pages, by no later than 5:00 pm
on December 13, 2013. If plaintiffs wish to respond, they may file a supplemental
memorandum limited to this issue, not to exceed 5 pages, by no later than 5:00 pm on
December 16, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 12, 2013.
12/13/2013 Set/Reset Deadlines: Government's Supplemental Memorandum due by 12/13/2013.
Plaintiff Response due by 12/16/2013. (mac) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
12/13/2013 31 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Order,,,, filed by JACOB J. LEW,
THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Berwick, Benjamin)
(Entered: 12/13/2013)
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
12/16/2013 32 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Order,,,, filed by ALVEDA KING, JANET
MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE. (Muise, Robert) (Entered:
12/16/2013)
MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE (Attachments: #1 Memorandum
Decision & Order)(Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
12/19/2013 35 ORDER granting 14 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 8 , 14 the parties'
cross motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December
19, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/19/2013 36 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December
19, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/19/2013 37 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 35 Order on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to
Dismiss, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, by ALVEDA KING, JANET
MORANA, FRANK PAVONE, PRIESTS FOR LIFE. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number
0090-3570500. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Muise, Robert)
(Entered: 12/19/2013)
12/19/2013 1:51 PM
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PRIESTS FOR LIFE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-v-

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01261-EGS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given this 19th day of December 2013, that Plaintiffs Priests for Life,
Father Frank Pavone, Alveda King, and J anet Morana (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs)
hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the
Order (Doc. No. 35) entered in this action on the 19th day of December 2013, granting
Defendants Motion to Dismiss and denying as moot Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary
J udgment, and the associated Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 36), which grant judgment in
favor of Defendants and against said Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert J . Muise
Robert J . Muise, Esq. (D.C. Court Bar No. MI 0052)
P.O. Box 131098
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113
Tel: (734) 635-3756
rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org

/s/ David Yerushalmi
David Yerushalmi, Esq. (D.C. Bar No. 978179)
1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 201
Washington, D.C. 20001
dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
Tel: (646) 262-0500
Fax: (801) 760-3901
Case 1:13-cv-01261-EGS Document 37 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 19, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an
appearance by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing
through the Courts system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served by
ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an appearance
electronically: none.

/s/ Robert J . Muise
Robert J . Muise, Esq.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
________________________________
)
PRI ESTS FOR LI FE, et al . , )
)
Pl ai nt i f f s, )
)
v. ) Ci vi l No. 13- 1261 ( EGS)
)
UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVI CES, )
et al . )
)
Def endant s. )
________________________________)

ORDER

For t he r easons st at ed i n t he accompanyi ng Memor andum
Opi ni on f i l ed on t hi s day, i t i s her eby
ORDERED t hat def endant s Mot i on t o Di smi ss i s GRANTED; and
i t i s
FURTHER ORDERED t hat t he par t i es cr oss mot i ons f or summar y
j udgment ar e DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
December 19, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
________________________________
)
PRI ESTS FOR LI FE, et al . , )
)
Pl ai nt i f f s, )
)
v. ) Ci vi l Act i on No. 13- 1261 ( EGS)
)
UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVI CES, )
et al . )
)
Def endant s. )
________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thi s case pr esent s one of many chal l enges t o t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e of t he Af f or dabl e Car e Act
( ACA) , Pub. L. No. 111- 148, 124 St at . 119 ( 2010) . A number of
ci r cui t s, i ncl udi ng t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a Ci r cui t , have
exami ned t he mandat e s r equi r ement s r egar di ng cont r acept i ve
cover age f or empl oyees of f or - pr of i t compani es; t hat i ssue i s
now pendi ng bef or e t he Supr eme Cour t . See Hobby Lobby Stores,
Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F. 3d 1114, ( 10t h Ci r . 2013) ( en banc) ,
cert. granted, 2013 U. S. LEXI S 8418 ( U. S. Nov. 26, 2013) ( Case
No. 13- 354) ; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 724
F. 3d 377 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , cert. granted, 2013 U. S. LEXI S 8418
( U. S. Nov. 26, 2013) ( No. 13- 354) ; see also, e.g., Gilardi v.
United States Dept of Health and Human Services, 733 F. 3d 1208
( D. C. Ci r . 2013) .
2
The i nst ant case pr esent s a di f f er ent i ssue: t he

obl i gat i ons, vel non, of nonpr of i t r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons t o
pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age under t he mandat e. These
or gani zat i ons ar e el i gi bl e f or an accommodat i on t o t he mandat e;
speci f i cal l y, t hey ar e not r equi r ed t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve
cover age t o t hei r empl oyees i f t hey obj ect t o doi ng so on
r el i gi ous gr ounds. Under t he r egul at i ons, an empl oyer i n t hi s
si t uat i on can sel f - cer t i f y t o i t s heal t h i nsur ance i ssuer t hat
i t has a r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o pr ovi di ng cover age f or
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces as par t of i t s heal t h i nsur ance pl an.
Once t he i ssuer r ecei ves t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on, t he nonpr of i t
or gani zat i on i s exempt f r omt he mandat e. The or gani zat i on s
empl oyees wi l l r ecei ve cover age f or cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, but
t hat cover age wi l l be pr ovi ded di r ect l y t hr ough t he i ssuer . The
cover age i s excl uded f r omt he empl oyer s pl an of benef i t s, and
t he i ssuer assumes t he f ul l cost s of cover age; i t i s pr ohi bi t ed
f r omchar gi ng any copayment s, deduct i bl es, f ees, pr emi umhi kes
or ot her cost s t o t he or gani zat i on or i t s empl oyees.
Pr i est s f or Li f e, a nonpr of i t or gani zat i on whi ch t akes a
vocal and act i ve r ol e i n t he pr o- l i f e movement , Compl ai nt
73, and t hr ee of i t s empl oyees have f i l ed t hi s l awsui t obj ect i ng
t o t he accommodat i on t o t he mandat e. They al l ege t hat t he sel f -
cer t i f i cat i on Pr i est s f or Li f e must pr ovi de t o i t s i ssuer
vi ol at es t hei r r i ght s under t he Rel i gi ous Fr eedomRest or at i on
3
Act , 42 U. S. C. 2000bb, et seq. ( RFRA) , and t he Fi r st and

Fi f t h Amendment s t o t he Const i t ut i on.
The Supr eme Cour t has made cl ear t hat r el i gi ous exer ci se i s
i mper mi ssi bl y bur dened when gover nment act i on compel s
i ndi vi dual s t o per f or mact s undeni abl y at odds wi t h f undament al
t enet s of t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U. S. 205, 218 ( 1972) . At t he same t i me, act s of t hi r d par t i es,
whi ch do not cause adher ent s t o act i n vi ol at i on of t hei r
r el i gi ous bel i ef s, do not const i t ut e an i mper mi ssi bl e bur den.
Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F. 3d 669, 678 ( D. C. Ci r . 2008) . The
r i ght t o r el i gi ous f r eedomsi mpl y cannot be under st ood t o
r equi r e t he Gover nment t o conduct i t s [ ] af f ai r s i n ways t hat
compor t wi t h t he r el i gi ous bel i ef s of par t i cul ar ci t i zens.
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U. S. 693, 699 ( 1986) . Rel i gi ous f r eedomi s
pr ot ect ed i n t er ms of what t he gover nment cannot do t o t he
i ndi vi dual , not i n t er ms of what t he i ndi vi dual can exact f r om
t he gover nment . Lyng v. Nwest Indian Cemetery Protective
Assn., 485 U. S. 439, 451 ( 1988) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .
Pl ai nt i f f s her e do not al l ege t hat t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on
i t sel f vi ol at es t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s. To t he cont r ar y, t he
cer t i f i cat i on st at es t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e i s opposed t o
pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age, whi ch i s consi st ent wi t h t hose
bel i ef s. I ndeed, dur i ng or al ar gument , pl ai nt i f f s st at ed t hat
t hey have no r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o f i l l i ng out t he sel f -
4
cer t i f i cat i on; i t i s t he i ssuer s subsequent pr ovi si on of

cover age t o whi ch t hey obj ect . But f i l l i ng out t he f or mi s al l
t hat t he ACA r equi r es of t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case.
Ther e i s no doubt t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s f i nd t he st at ut e s
r equi r ement t hat t he i ssuer pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age
pr of oundl y opposed t o t hei r r el i gi ous scr upl es. But t he
i ssuer s pr ovi si on of cover age i s j ust t hat - - an ent i r el y t hi r d
par t y act . The issuers pr ovi si on of cover age does not r equi r e
plaintiffs t o per f or mact s at odds wi t h t hei r bel i ef s. Yoder,
406 U. S. at 218. Accor di ngl y, t he accommodat i ons t o t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e do not vi ol at e t hei r r el i gi ous
r i ght s.
Pendi ng bef or e t he Cour t i s t he pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or
summar y j udgment and t he def endant s cr oss mot i on t o di smi ss or
i n t he al t er nat i ve f or summar y j udgment . Upon consi der at i on of
t he mot i ons, t he opposi t i ons and r epl i es t her et o, t he Amicus
Curiae br i ef of t he Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on, t he ent i r e
r ecor d, and f or t he r easons expl ai ned bel ow, def endant s mot i on
t o di smi ss i s GRANTED; accor di ngl y, t he par t i es mot i ons f or
summar y j udgment ar e her eby DENIED AS MOOT.
I. BACKGROUND
Pr i est s f or Li f e i s a nonpr of i t cor por at i on i ncor por at ed
i n t he St at e of New Yor k, and Fat her Fr ank Pavone, Al veda Ki ng,
and J anet Mor ana ar e among i t s empl oyees. Compl . 6- 11. A
5
deep devot i on t o t he Cat hol i c f ai t h i s cent r al t o t he mi ssi on of

Pr i est s f or Li f e. Compl . 85. I t s mi ssi on i s t o uni t e and
encour age al l cl er gy t o gi ve speci al emphasi s t o t he l i f e i ssues
i n t hei r mi ni st r y . . . [ and] t o hel p t hemt ake a mor e vocal and
act i ve r ol e i n t he pr o- l i f e movement . Compl . 73.
Accor di ngl y, cont r acept i on, st er i l i zat i on, abor t i f aci ent s
1
and
abor t i on . . . ar e i mmor al and ant i t het i cal t o Pr i est s f or
Li f e s r el i gi ous mi ssi on. Id. Pr i est s f or Li f e pr ovi des
heal t h i nsur ance f or i t s empl oyees. Compl . 93. The next pl an
year wi l l commence on J anuar y 1, 2014. Compl . 101.
Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms ar i se out of cer t ai n r egul at i ons
pr omul gat ed i n connect i on wi t h t he ACA. The Act r equi r es al l
gr oup heal t h pl ans and heal t h i nsur ance i ssuer s t hat of f er non-
gr andf at her ed gr oup or i ndi vi dual heal t h cover age t o pr ovi de
cover age f or cer t ai n pr event i ve ser vi ces wi t hout cost - shar i ng,
i ncl udi ng, f or women, such addi t i onal pr event i ve car e and
scr eeni ngs . . . as pr ovi ded f or i n compr ehensi ve gui del i nes
suppor t ed by t he Heal t h Resour ces and Ser vi ces Admi ni st r at i on
[ ( HRSA) ] . 42 U. S. C. 300gg- 13( a) ( 4) . The HRSA, an agency
wi t hi n t he Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Ser vi ces ( HHS) ,
commi ssi oned t he I nst i t ut e of Medi ci ne ( I OM) t o conduct a
1
Pl ai nt i f f s use t he wor d abor t i f aci ent t o r ef er t o dr ugs such
as Pl an B and El l a t hat t hey al l ege cause abor t i ons. See, e.g.,
Compl . 37. Pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege t hat t he r egul at i ons wi l l
r equi r e t hemt o pr ovi de i nsur ance cover age f or t he medi cal
pr ocedur e of abor t i on.
6
st udy on pr event i ve ser vi ces. On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopt ed

I OM s r ecommendat i on t o i ncl ude al l Food and Dr ug
Admi ni st r at i on appr oved cont r acept i ve met hods, st er i l i zat i on
pr ocedur es, and pat i ent educat i on and counsel i ng f or women wi t h
r epr oduct i ve capaci t y. See HRSA, Women s Pr event i ve Ser vi ces:
Requi r ed Heal t h Pl an Cover age Gui del i nes ( HRSA Gui del i nes) ,
available at ht t p: / / www. hr sa. gov/ womensgui del i nes/ ( l ast vi si t ed
Dec. 17, 2013) .
Sever al exempt i ons and saf e- har bor pr ovi si ons excuse
cer t ai n empl oyer s f r ompr ovi di ng gr oup heal t h pl ans t hat cover
women s pr event i ve ser vi ces as def i ned by HHS r egul at i ons.
Fi r st , t he mandat e does not appl y t o cer t ai n gr andf at her ed
heal t h pl ans i n whi ch i ndi vi dual s wer e enr ol l ed on Mar ch 23,
2010, t he dat e t he ACA was enact ed. 75 Fed. Reg. 34, 538 ( J une
17, 2010) . Second, cer t ai n r el i gi ous empl oyer s ar e excl uded
f r omt he mandat e. See, e.g., 76 Fed. Reg. 46, 621 ( Aug. 3, 2011) ;
45 C. F. R. 147. 130( a) ( 1) ( i v) ( A) . On J une 28, 2013, t he
gover nment i ssued f i nal r ul es on cont r acept i ve cover age and
r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons; t he r ul es became ef f ect i ve August 1,
2013. 78 Fed. Reg. 39, 870 ( J ul y 2, 2013) . These r egul at i ons
ar e t he subj ect of t hi s case.
Under t he f i nal r egul at i ons, a r el i gi ous empl oyer exempt
f r omt he cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e i s an or gani zat i on t hat
i s or gani zed and oper at es as a nonpr of i t ent i t y and i s r ef er r ed
7
t o i n sect i on 6033( a) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) or ( a) ( 3) ( A) ( i i i ) of t he I nt er nal

Revenue Code, whi ch r ef er s t o chur ches, t hei r i nt egr at ed
auxi l i ar i es, and convent i ons or associ at i ons of chur ches, and
t he excl usi vel y r el i gi ous act i vi t i es of any r el i gi ous or der . 45
C. F. R. 147. 131( a) . Non- pr of i t or gani zat i ons whi ch do not
qual i f y f or t hi s exempt i on may, however , qual i f y f or an
accommodat i on wi t h r espect t o t he cont r acept i ve cover age
r equi r ement i f t hey ar e el i gi bl e or gani zat i ons under t he
r egul at i ons. An el i gi bl e or gani zat i on must sat i sf y t he
f ol l owi ng cr i t er i a:
( 1) The or gani zat i on opposes pr ovi di ng cover age f or some or
al l of any cont r acept i ve ser vi ces r equi r ed t o be cover ed
under 147. 130( a) ( 1) ( i v) on account of r el i gi ous
obj ect i ons.
( 2) The or gani zat i on i s or gani zed and oper at es as a non-
pr of i t ent i t y.
( 3) The or gani zat i on hol ds i t sel f out as a r el i gi ous
or gani zat i on.
( 4) The or gani zat i on sel f - cer t i f i es, i n t he f or mand manner
speci f i ed by t he Secr et ar y, t hat i t sat i sf i es t he
cr i t er i a i n par agr aphs ( 1) t hr ough ( 3) , and makes such
sel f - cer t i f i cat i on avai l abl e f or exami nat i on upon r equest
by t he f i r st day of t he f i r st pl an year t o whi ch t he
accommodat i on appl i es.
45 C. F. R. 147. 131( b) ; see also 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 874- 75.
Once an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on pr ovi des a copy of a sel f -
cer t i f i cat i on t o i t s i ssuer , whi ch pr ovi des cover age i n
connect i on wi t h t he gr oup heal t h pl an, t he or gani zat i on i s
r el i eved of i t s obl i gat i on t o cont r act , ar r ange, pay or r ef er
f or cont r acept i ve cover age t o whi ch i t has r el i gi ous
8
obj ect i ons. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 874. The gr oup heal t h pl an
i ssuer whi ch r ecei ves t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or mmust ( 1)
excl ude cont r acept i ve cover age f r omt he gr oup heal t h i nsur ance
cover age pr ovi ded i n connect i on wi t h t he gr oup heal t h pl an, and
( 2) pr ovi de separ at e payment s f or any cont r acept i ve ser vi ces
r equi r ed t o be cover ed f or pl an par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es.
The i ssuer may not i mpose any cost - shar i ng r equi r ement s ( such as
a copayment , coi nsur ance or a deduct i bl e) on pl an par t i ci pant s
or benef i ci ar i es. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 896. Li kewi se, t he i ssuer
i s pr ohi bi t ed f r omi mposi ng any pr emi um, f ee, or ot her char ge,
or any por t i on t her eof , di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y, on t he el i gi bl e
or gani zat i on or t he gr oup heal t h pl an. Id. Fai l ur e t o sel f -
cer t i f y or ot her wi se compl y wi t h t he mandat e wi l l r esul t i n
Pr i est s f or Li f e s i ssuer i ncl udi ng cont r acept i ve ser vi ces
wi t hi n Pr i est s f or Li f e s heal t hcar e pol i cy, and char gi ng t he
or gani zat i on f or such cover age.
2

2
Dur i ng t he i ni t i al br i ef i ng, t he par t i es st at ed t hat i f Pr i est s
f or Li f e r ef used t he accommodat i on, i t coul d be f i ned $100 per
empl oyee per day. 26 U. S. C. 4980D. At or al ar gument ,
however , t he gover nment i nf or med t he cour t t hat t he ACA i mposes
an i ndependent obl i gat i on on i nsur er s t o sel l pol i ci es whi ch
compl y wi t h t he l aw, i ncl udi ng, e.g., cover age f or cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces. See Def s. Suppl . Mem. at 1- 4 [ ECF No. 31] , citing 42
U. S. C. 300gg- 13; 300gg- 22; 76 Fed. Reg. 46, 621, 623 ( Aug. 3,
2011) . Thi s does not al t er t he anal ysi s, however . Under t he
st at ut e and r egul at i ons, i f Pr i est s f or Li f e r ef uses t he
accommodat i on, i t woul d t hen be pl aced i n t he posi t i on of
pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve ser vi ces t o i t s empl oyees as par t of i t s
pl an of benef i t s, and payi ng f or such ser vi ces. As t hi s Ci r cui t
hel d i n Gilardi, t hi s ar r angement woul d subst ant i al l y bur den
9
The par t i es agr ee t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e does not qual i f y

f or an exempt i on t o t he cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e. The
gr andf at her ed pl ans pr ovi si on does not pr ot ect t he or gani zat i on
because t he cur r ent heal t h i nsur ance pl an has made changes si nce
2010, i ncl udi ng an i ncr ease i n t he per cent age cost - shar i ng
r equi r ement . See Decl . of Fr . Pavone, ECF No. 7- 1, at 5.
Pr i est s f or Li f e al so does not sat i sf y t he def i ni t i on of
r el i gi ous empl oyer and i s not el i gi bl e f or an exempt i on on
t hat gr ound. Id. at 3. Fi nal l y, t he par t i es agr ee t hat
Pr i est s f or Li f e woul d qual i f y as an el i gi bl e or gani zat i on,
ent i t l ed t o t he accommodat i on, i f i t compl et es t he sel f -
cer t i f i cat i on f or m. Compl . 6.
Pr i est s f or Li f e st at es t hat compl et i ng t he sel f -
cer t i f i cat i on f or mwi l l r equi r e i t t o vi ol at e i t s si ncer el y hel d
r el i gi ous bel i ef s because t he gover nment mandat e f or ces Pr i est s
f or Li f e t o pr ovi de t he means and mechani smby whi ch
cont r acept i on, st er i l i zat i on and abor t i f aci ent s ar e pr ovi ded t o
i t s empl oyees. . . . Ther e i s no l ogi cal or mor al di st i nct i on
bet ween t he [ ] cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e . . . and t he
accommodat i on[ . ] . . . Pr i est s f or Li f e [ i s] st i l l payi ng an
i nsur er t o pr ovi de [ i t s] empl oyees wi t h access t o a pr oduct [ ]
t hat vi ol at es [ i t s] r el i gi ous convi ct i ons. Compl . 69- 70,
Pl ai nt i f f s f r ee exer ci se of r el i gi on. Gilardi, 733 F. 3d at

1216- 19.
10
see al so id. 105 ( Pr i est s f or Li f e obj ect s t o bei ng f or ced by

t he gover nment t o pur chase a heal t h car e pl an t hat pr ovi des i t s
empl oyees wi t h access t o cont r acept i ves, st er i l i zat i on and
abor t i f aci ent s, al l of whi ch ar e pr ohi bi t ed by i t s r el i gi ous
convi ct i ons. Thi s i s t r ue whet her t he i mmor al ser vi ces ar e pai d
f or di r ect l y, i ndi r ect l y, or even not at al l by Pr i est s f or
Li f e. ) .
On Sept ember 19, 2013, pl ai nt i f f s moved f or a pr el i mi nar y
i nj unct i on as t o al l count s of t he Compl ai nt . On Sept ember 25,
2013, t he par t i es agr eed t o consol i dat e t he pr el i mi nar y
i nj unct i on mot i on wi t h t he mer i t s under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l
Pr ocedur e 65( a) ( 2) . Ther eaf t er , pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed a mot i on f or
summar y j udgment and def endant s f i l ed a cr oss mot i on t o di smi ss
or i n t he al t er nat i ve f or summar y j udgment . Towar d t he end of
t he br i ef i ng schedul e set by t he Cour t , t he D. C. Ci r cui t i ssued
i t s deci si on i n Gilardi, addr essi ng r el i gi ous f r eedomcl ai ms
ar i si ng f r omdi f f er ent r egul at i ons under t he ACA s cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces mandat e. Fol l owi ng Gilardi, t he Cour t or der ed t he
par t i es t o f i l e suppl ement al br i ef s addr essi ng i t s i mpact on
t hi s case. The Cour t hear d or al ar gument on t he par t i es cr oss
mot i ons on December 9, 2013. The mot i ons ar e r i pe f or
det er mi nat i on by t he Cour t .

11
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss
A mot i on t o di smi ss under Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e
12( b) ( 6) t est s t he l egal suf f i ci ency of a compl ai nt . Browning
v. Clinton, 292 F. 3d 235, 242 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) . A compl ai nt must
cont ai n a shor t and pl ai n st at ement of t he cl ai mshowi ng t hat
t he pl eader i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef , i n or der t o gi ve t he
def endant f ai r not i ce of what t he . . . cl ai mi s and t he gr ounds
upon whi ch i t r est s. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544,
555 ( 2007) ( quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed; al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) .
Whi l e det ai l ed f act ual al l egat i ons ar e not necessar y, pl ai nt i f f s
must pl ead enough f act s t o r ai se a r i ght t o r el i ef above t he
specul at i ve l evel . Id.
When r ul i ng on a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) mot i on, t he cour t may
consi der t he f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt , document s at t ached
as exhi bi t s or i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence i n t he compl ai nt , and
mat t er s about whi ch t he Cour t may t ake j udi ci al not i ce.
Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 ( D. D. C. 2002) .
The Cour t must const r ue t he compl ai nt l i ber al l y i n pl ai nt i f f s
f avor and gr ant pl ai nt i f f s t he benef i t of al l r easonabl e
i nf er ences der i vi ng f r omt he compl ai nt . Kowal v. MCI Commcns
Corp., 16 F. 3d 1271, 1276 ( D. C. Ci r . 1994) . However , t he Cour t
must not accept pl ai nt i f f s i nf er ences t hat ar e unsuppor t ed by
t he f act s set out i n t he compl ai nt . Id. Nor must t he cour t
12
accept l egal concl usi ons cast i n t he f or mof f act ual

al l egat i ons. Id. [ O] nl y a compl ai nt t hat st at es a pl ausi bl e
cl ai mf or r el i ef sur vi ves a mot i on t o di smi ss. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 679 ( 2009) .
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summar y j udgment i s appr opr i at e i f t he movant shows t hat
t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any mat er i al f act and t he
movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of l aw. Fed. R.
Ci v. P. 56( a) . The par t y seeki ng summar y j udgment bear s t he
i ni t i al r esponsi bi l i t y of i nf or mi ng t he di st r i ct cour t of t he
basi s f or i t s mot i on, and i dent i f yi ng t hose por t i ons of t he
pl eadi ngs, deposi t i ons, answer s t o i nt er r ogat or i es, and
admi ssi ons on f i l e, t oget her wi t h t he af f i davi t s, i f any, whi ch
i t bel i eves demonst r at e t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of
mat er i al f act . Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 323
( 1986) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . To def eat summar y
j udgment , t he non- movi ng par t y must desi gnat e speci f i c f act s
showi ng t her e i s a genui ne i ssue f or t r i al . Id. at 324
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The exi st ence of a f act ual
di sput e i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o pr ecl ude summar y j udgment . Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 24748 ( 1986) . A di sput e
i s genui ne onl y i f a r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d f i nd f or t he
non- movi ng par t y; a f act i s onl y mat er i al i f i t i s capabl e of
af f ect i ng t he out come of t he l i t i gat i on. Id. at 248; Laningham
13
v. U.S. Navy, 813 F. 2d 1236, 1241 ( D. C. Ci r . 1987) . I n

assessi ng a par t y s mot i on, [ a] l l under l yi ng f act s and
i nf er ences ar e anal yzed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non-
movi ng par t y. N.S. ex rel. Stein v. District of Columbia, 709
F. Supp. 2d 57, 65 ( D. D. C. 2010) , ci t i ng Anderson, 477 U. S. at
247.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Standing
The par t i es do not di sput e t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e, a non-
pr of i t r el i gi ous or gani zat i on, has st andi ng t o advance al l of
i t s const i t ut i onal and st at ut or y cl ai ms. See, e.g., Jimmy
Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 493 U. S.
378, 381, 384 ( 1990) ; EEOC v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 83 F. 3d
455, 467- 70 ( D. C. Ci r . 1996) . The Cour t , t her ef or e, has
j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear and deci de t he i ssues pr esent ed by t hi s
case. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Instl Rights, Inc., 547
U. S. 47, 52 n. 2 ( 2006) ( [ T] he pr esence of one par t y wi t h
st andi ng i s suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y Ar t i cl e I I I s case- or -
cont r over sy r equi r ement . ) .
Whi l e t he def endant s chal l enge st andi ng of t he i ndi vi dual
pl ai nt i f f s, t hey acknowl edge t hat t he i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s
cl ai ms ar e i dent i cal t o Pr i est s f or Li f e s cl ai ms. See Def s.
Combi ned Mot . t o Di smi ss or f or Summ. J and Opp n t o Pl s. Mot .
( her ei naf t er Def s. Mot . ) at 13, n. 8. At or al ar gument , t he
14
par t i es agr eed t hat i t i s unnecessar y f or t he Cour t t o addr ess

t he st andi ng of t he i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s. See, e.g., Chamber of
Commerce v. EPA, 642 F. 3d 192, 200 ( D. C. Ci r . 2011) ( i t i s
unnecessar y t o addr ess t he st andi ng of par t y whose pr esence or
absence i s i mmat er i al t o a sui t s out come, wher e anot her par t y
cl ear l y has st andi ng) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, because
t he pr esence of t he i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i f f s has no i mpact on t he
mer i t s of t hi s case, t he Cour t need not r each t he i ssue of t hei r
st andi ng.
B. The RFRA
The Rel i gi ous Fr eedomRest or at i on Act , 42 U. S. C. 2000bb-
1, pr ovi des t hat [ g] over nment shal l not subst ant i al l y bur den a
per son s exer ci se of r el i gi on even i f t he bur den r esul t s f r oma
r ul e of gener al appl i cabi l i t y, except as pr ovi ded i n subsect i on
( b) . Subsect i on ( b) pr ovi des t hat [ g] over nment may
subst ant i al l y bur den a per son s exer ci se of r el i gi on onl y i f i t
demonst r at es t hat appl i cat i on of t he bur den t o t he per son i s ( 1)
i n f ur t her ance of a compel l i ng gover nment al i nt er est ; and ( 2) i s
t he l east r est r i ct i ve means of f ur t her i ng t hat compel l i ng
gover nment al i nt er est .
Congr ess enact ed t he RFRA i n r esponse t o t he Supr eme
Cour t s deci si on i n Employment Division, Department of Human
Services of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 ( 1990) , i n whi ch t he
Cour t hel d t hat t he r i ght t o f r ee exer ci se of r el i gi on under t he
15
Fi r st Amendment does not exempt an i ndi vi dual f r oma l aw t hat i s

neut r al and of gener al appl i cabi l i t y, and expl i ci t l y di savowed
t he t est used i n ear l i er deci si ons, whi ch pr ohi bi t ed t he
gover nment f r omsubst ant i al l y bur deni ng a pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi ous
exer ci se unl ess t he gover nment coul d show t hat i t s act i on ser ved
a compel l i ng i nt er est and was t he l east r est r i ct i ve means t o
achi eve t hat i nt er est . 42 U. S. C. 2000bb. The pur pose of t he
RFRA was t o r est or e t he compel l i ng i nt er est t est as set f or t h
i n Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 ( 1963) and Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 ( 1972) . Id.
I n or der t o st at e a pr i ma f aci e case under RFRA, and t hus
t o sur vi ve a mot i on t o di smi ss, pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege a
subst ant i al bur den on t hei r r el i gi ous exer ci se. The st at ut e
def i nes r el i gi ous exer ci se br oadl y, as any exer ci se of
r el i gi on, whet her or not compel l ed by, or cent r al t o, a syst em
of r el i gi ous bel i ef . 42 U. S. C. 2000bb- 2( 4) ; 2000cc- 5. The
RFRA does not def i ne subst ant i al bur den, but because t he RFRA
i nt ends t o r est or e Sherbert and Yoder, t hose cases ar e
i nst r uct i ve i n det er mi ni ng t he meani ng of t hat t er m. I n
Sherbert, pl ai nt i f f s exer ci se of her r el i gi on was i mper mi ssi bl y
bur dened when pl ai nt i f f was f or ced t o choose bet ween f ol l owi ng
t he pr ecept s of her r el i gi on, r est i ng and not wor ki ng on t he
Sabbat h and f or f ei t i ng cer t ai n unempl oyment benef i t s as a
r esul t , or abandoni ng one of t he pr ecept s of her r el i gi on i n
16
or der t o accept wor k. 374 U. S. at 404. I n Yoder, t he i mpact

of t he compul sor y [ school ] at t endance l aw on r espondent s
pr act i ce of t he Ami sh r el i gi on [ was f ound t o be] not onl y
sever e, but i nescapabl e, f or t he Wi sconsi n l aw af f i r mat i vel y
compel s t hem, under t hr eat of cr i mi nal sanct i on, t o per f or mact s
undeni abl y at odds wi t h f undament al t enet s of t hei r r el i gi ous
bel i ef s. 406 U. S. at 218.
Thi s Ci r cui t al so r ecent l y addr essed t he i ssue of
subst ant i al bur den i n t he cont ext of a RFRA chal l enge t o t he ACA
i n Gilardi. The Gi l ar di br ot her s ar e t he t wo owner s of cl osel y
hel d f or - pr of i t compani es. Thei r compani es ar e not el i gi bl e
f or t he accommodat i ons avai l abl e t o Pr i est s f or Li f e; t he
r egul at i ons r equi r e such compani es t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve
cover age f or t he par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es i n t hei r gr oup
heal t h pl ans. The Gi l ar di s chal l enged t he pr ovi si ons of t he
cont r acept i ve mandat e whi ch woul d have r equi r ed t hemt o di r ect l y
pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age t o t hei r empl oyees, cl ai mi ng i t
subst ant i al l y bur dened t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s opposi ng
cont r acept i on. The Ci r cui t agr eed, f i ndi ng t hat t he bur den on
r el i gi ous exer ci se . . . occur s when a company s owner s f i l l t he
basket of goods and ser vi ces t hat const i t ut e a heal t hcar e pl an.
I n ot her wor ds, t he Gi l ar di s ar e bur dened when t hey ar e
pr essur ed t o choose bet ween vi ol at i ng t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s i n
managi ng t hei r sel ect ed pl an or payi ng oner ous penal t i es. 733
17
F. 3d at 1217. The cont r acept i ve mandat e, as appl i ed t o

compani es not el i gi bl e f or t he accommodat i ons, demands t hat
owner s l i ke t he Gi l ar di s meani ngf ul l y appr ove and endor se t he
i ncl usi on of cont r acept i ve cover age i n t hei r compani es
empl oyer - pr ovi ded pl ans. Id. at 1217- 18.
Unl i ke t he Gi l ar di s, Pr i est s f or Li f e i s el i gi bl e f or t he
accommodat i ons t o t he mandat e, and t her ef or e i s not r equi r ed t o
pr ovi de cont r acept i ve ser vi ces t o i t s empl oyees. To t ake
advant age of t he accommodat i ons, Pr i est s f or Li f e wi l l be
r equi r ed t o pr ovi de i t s i nsur er wi t h a sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m
st at i ng t hat i t i s a r el i gi ous, nonpr of i t or gani zat i on whi ch
opposes pr ovi di ng cover age f or some or al l of any cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces r equi r ed t o be cover ed by t he mandat e. 78 Fed. Reg. at
39, 874, 39, 892.
3
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on
3
I n addi t i on, Pr i est s f or Li f e cl ai ms t hat i t wi l l be r equi r ed
t o i dent i f y i t s empl oyees t o i t s i nsur er f or t he di st i nct
pur pose of enabl i ng and f aci l i t at i ng t he gover nment s obj ect i ve
of pr omot i ng t he use of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces; Pl s. Mot . f or
Pr el i m. I nj . at 7 ( her ei naf t er Pl s. Mot . ) ; and coor di nat e
wi t h i t s i nsur er when addi ng or r emovi ng empl oyees and
benef i ci ar i es f r omi t s heal t h car e pl an t o ensur e t hat t hese
i ndi vi dual s r ecei ve cover age f or cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, id. at
8. Pl ai nt i f f s pr ovi de no suppor t f or t hei r cl ai mt hat t he
chal l enged r egul at i ons r equi r e ei t her of t hese t hi ngs, and
admi t t ed at or al ar gument t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e must i dent i f y
i t s empl oyees t o i t s i nsur er and coor di nat e wi t h i t s i nsur er
i n or der t o pr ovi de i t s cur r ent heal t h car e pl an t o i t s
empl oyees. Pr i est s f or Li f e al so suggest s, wi t hout suppor t ,
t hat i t wi l l ul t i mat el y have t o bear t he cost s of t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e, because t he i nsur ance compani es
wi l l somehow f i nd a way t o ei t her r ai se pr emi ums t o cover t he
cost of such cover age, or f ai l t o l ower pr emi ums t o r ef l ect t he
18
subst ant i al l y bur dens t hei r exer ci se of r el i gi on because t he

accommodat i ons r equi r e Pr i est s f or Li f e t o pr omot e, f aci l i t at e
and cooper at e i n t he gover nment s i mmor al obj ect i ve t o i ncr ease
t he use of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces i n di r ect vi ol at i on of
Pl ai nt i f f s si ncer el y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef s. Pl s. Mot . at 1.
[ B] ecause Pr i est s f or Li f e pr ovi des i t s empl oyees wi t h a heal t h
car e pl an, t he gover nment mandat e f or ces Pr i est s f or Li f e t o
pr ovi de t he means and mechani smby whi ch cont r acept i on,
st er i l i zat i on, and abor t i f aci ent s ( and r el at ed educat i on and
counsel i ng) ar e pr ovi ded t o i t s empl oyees ( and benef i ci ar i es) ,
whi ch i s unaccept abl e t o Pl ai nt i f f s because i t vi ol at es t hei r
si ncer el y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef s. Id. at 9. Thi s i s t r ue
whet her t he i mmor al ser vi ces ar e pai d f or di r ect l y, i ndi r ect l y,
or even not at al l by Pr i est s f or Li f e. Id. at 15. I n sum,
Pl ai nt i f f s al l eges t hey ar e pr essur ed t o choose bet ween
vi ol at i ng t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s by suppor t [ i ng] and
pr ovi d[ i ng] access t o t he ser vi ces pr ovi ded under t he
cont r acept i on mandat e, or l eavi ng t he heal t h car e i nsur ance
mar ket al t oget her . Id. at 16.
savi ngs t o t he i nsur er by i t s pr ovi si on of such cover age. Pl s.

Mot . at 9, n. 6, 10, n. 7. The pl ai n l anguage of t he r egul at i ons,
however , pr ohi bi t s i nsur er s f r ompassi ng al ong any cost s of
cont r acept i ve cover age t o el i gi bl e or gani zat i ons such as Pr i est s
f or Li f e, whet her t hr ough cost - shar i ng, pr emi ums, f ees, or ot her
char ges. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39, 875- 77. The Cour t decl i nes,
t her ef or e, t o f i nd a subst ant i al bur den exi st s on any of t hese
gr ounds.
19
Def endant s do not quest i on t he si ncer i t y of Pl ai nt i f f s

r el i gi ous bel i ef s, but t hey do di sput e whet her t he
accommodat i ons i mpose a subst ant i al bur den on t he exer ci se of
t hose bel i ef s. Def endant s ar gue t hat t he r egul at i ons i mpose no
mor e t han a de minimis bur den on Pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi ous exer ci se
because t he r egul at i ons do not r equi r e Pr i est s f or Li f e t o
modi f y [ i t s] r el i gi ous behavi or i n any way. Def s. Mot . at 15
( quot i ng Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F. 3d 669, 679 ( D. C. Ci r .
2008) ) . Def endant s cont end t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e i s not
r equi r ed t o cont r act , ar r ange, pay or r ef er f or cont r acept i ve
cover age . . . Pr i est s f or Li f e need not do anyt hi ng mor e t han
i t di d pr i or t o t he pr omul gat i on of t he chal l enged r egul at i ons
t hat i s, t o i nf or mi t s i ssuer t hat i t obj ect s t o pr ovi di ng
cont r acept i ve cover age i n or der t o i nsur e t hat i t i s not
r esponsi bl e f or cont r act i ng, ar r angi ng, payi ng or r ef er r i ng f or
such cover age. Id. at 14- 15. The sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or monl y
r equi r e[ s] [ Pr i est s f or Li f e] t o i nf or mi t s i ssuer t hat i t
obj ect s t o pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age, whi ch i t has done .
. . vol unt ar i l y anyway even absent t hese r egul at i ons i n or der
t o i nsur e t hat i t does not pr ovi de such cover age. Id. 15- 16.
Accor di ngl y, Def endant s ar gue t hat compl et i ng t he sel f -
cer t i f i cat i on f or mi s at most , de minimis, and t hus cannot be
subst ant i al under RFRA. Id. 17. For t he r easons set f or t h
bel ow, t he Cour t agr ees wi t h t he gover nment .
20
A subst ant i al bur den exi st s when gover nment act i on put s
subst ant i al pr essur e on an adher ent t o modi f y hi s behavi or and
vi ol at e hi s bel i ef s. Gilardi, 733 F. 3d at 1216 ( quot i ng
Kaemmerling, 553 F. 3d at 678) ; see also Yoder, 406 U. S. at 218
( l aw subst ant i al l y bur dens t he exer ci se of r el i gi on i f i t
compel s i ndi vi dual s t o per f or mact s undeni abl y at odds wi t h
f undament al t enet s of t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s. ) An
i nconsequent i al or de minimis bur den on r el i gi ous pr act i ce does
not r i se t o t hi s l evel [ . ] Kaemmerling, 553 F. 3d at 678.
Fi nal l y, an adher ent i s not subst ant i al l y bur dened by l aws
r equi r i ng t hi r d par t i es t o conduct t hei r i nt er nal af f ai r s i n
ways t hat vi ol at e hi s bel i ef s. Id. at 679.
I n Kaemmerling, a f eder al pr i soner cl ai med t hat t he
st at ut or i l y mandat ed col l ect i on and use of hi s DNA f or pur poses
of a nat i onal l aw enf or cement dat abase subst ant i al l y bur dened
hi s f r ee exer ci se r i ght s. Kaemmer l i ng al l eged t hat t he
col l ect i on, st or age, and use of hi s DNA vi ol at ed hi s si ncer el y
hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef s. The D. C. Ci r cui t accept [ ed] as t r ue
t he f act ual al l egat i ons t hat Kaemmer l i ng s bel i ef s ar e si ncer e
and of a r el i gi ous nat ur e, 553 F. 3d at 679. The Cour t f ur t her
not ed t hat t he gover nment commanded compl i ance wi t h t he st at ut e;
f ai l ur e t o cooper at e wi t h col l ect i on of a f l ui d sampl e f r om
whi ch t he DNA woul d be i sol at ed i s a mi sdemeanor of f ense. Id.
at 673. Never t hel ess, t he Cour t r ej ect ed hi s RFRA cl ai m
21
because t he gover nment was not f or ci ng hi mt o modi f y hi s own

behavi or . The Cour t expl ai ned:
Kaemmer l i ng does not al l ege f act s suf f i ci ent t o st at e a
subst ant i al bur den . . . because he cannot i dent i f y any
exer ci se whi ch i s t he subj ect of t he bur den t o whi ch he
obj ect s. The ext r act i on and st or age of DNA i nf or mat i on ar e
ent i r el y t he act i vi t i es of t he FBI , i n whi ch Kaemmer l i ng
pl ays no r ol e and whi ch occur af t er t he [ pr i son] has t aken
hi s f l ui d or t i ssue sampl e ( t o whi ch he does not obj ect ) .
The gover nment s ext r act i on, anal ysi s, and st or age of
Kaemmer l i ng s DNA i nf or mat i on does not cal l f or Kaemmer l i ng
t o modi f y hi s r el i gi ous behavi or i n any way i t i nvol ves
no act i on or f or bear ance on hi s par t , nor does i t ot her wi se
i nt er f er e wi t h any r el i gi ous act i n whi ch he engages.
Al t hough t he gover nment s act i vi t i es wi t h hi s f l ui d or
t i ssue sampl e af t er t he [ pr i son] t akes i t may of f end
Kaemmer l i ng s r el i gi ous bel i ef s, t hey cannot be sai d t o
hamper hi s r el i gi ous exer ci se because t hey do not pr essur e
[ hi m] t o modi f y hi s behavi or and t o vi ol at e hi s bel i ef s.
Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U. S. 707, 718 ( 1981) .

Kaemmer l i ng al l eges no r el i gi ous obser vance t hat t he DNA
Act i mpedes, or act s i n vi ol at i on of hi s r el i gi ous bel i ef s
t hat i t pr essur es hi mt o per f or m. Rel i gi ous exer ci se
necessar i l y i nvol ves an act i on or pr act i ce, as i n Sherbert,
wher e t he deni al of unempl oyment benef i t s i mpede[ d] t he
obser vance of t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r el i gi on by pr essur i ng her
t o wor k on Sat ur day i n vi ol at i on of t he t enet s of her
r el i gi on, 374 U. S. at 404, or i n Yoder, wher e t he
compul sor y educat i on l aw compel l ed t he Ami sh t o per f or m
act s undeni abl y at odds wi t h f undament al t enet s of t hei r
r el i gi ous bel i ef s, 406 U. S. at 218. Kaemmer l i ng, i n
cont r ast , al l eges t hat t he DNA Act s r equi r ement t hat t he
f eder al gover nment col l ect and st or e hi s DNA i nf or mat i on
r equi r es t he gover nment t o act i n ways t hat vi ol at e hi s
r el i gi ous bel i ef s, but he suggest s no way i n whi ch t hese
gover nment al act s pr essur e hi mt o modi f y hi s own behavi or
i n any way t hat woul d vi ol at e hi s bel i ef s. See Appel l ant ' s
Br . at 21 ( descr i bi ng al l eged subst ant i al bur den as
knowi ng [ hi s] st r ongl y hel d bel i ef s had been vi ol at ed by
a[ n] unhol y act of an oppr essi ve r egi me) .
22
553 F. 3d at 679.
4
The Kaemmerling cour t r el i ed on Bowen v. Roy,
i n whi ch a Nat i ve Amer i can man obj ect ed t o t he st at es use of
hi s chi l d s Soci al Secur i t y number i n det er mi ni ng el i gi bi l i t y
f or wel f ar e benef i t s. The par ent s obj ect ed t o a st at ut or y
r equi r ement t hat st at e agenci es shal l ut i l i ze Soci al Secur i t y
number s not because i t pl ace[ d] any r est r i ct i on on what [ t he
f at her ] may bel i eve or what he may do, but because he bel i eves
t he use of t he number , a gover nment al act , may har mhi s
daught er s spi r i t . 476 U. S. 693, 699 ( 1986) . The Supr eme
Cour t concl uded t hat t he gover nment s use of t he chi l d s Soci al
Secur i t y number di d not i mpai r her par ent s f r eedomt o exer ci se
t hei r r el i gi on.
Never t o our knowl edge has t he Cour t i nt er pr et ed t he Fi r st
Amendment t o r equi r e t he Gover nment itself t o behave i n
ways t hat t he i ndi vi dual bel i eves wi l l f ur t her hi s or her
spi r i t ual devel opment or t hat of hi s or her f ami l y. The
Fr ee Exer ci se cl ause si mpl y cannot be under st ood t o r equi r e
t he Gover nment t o conduct i t s own i nt er nal af f ai r s i n ways
4
Ot her Ci r cui t s have al so emphasi zed t he r equi r ement t hat an
adher ent be pr essur ed t o modi f y hi s own conduct i n or der t o show
a subst ant i al bur den on r el i gi ous exer ci se. See, e.g., Navajo
Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F. 3d 1058, 1067 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008)
( en banc) ( t o est abl i sh a subst ant i al bur den under RFRA,
gover nment al act i on must coer ce t he Pl ai nt i f f s t o act cont r ar y
t o t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s under t he t hr eat of sanct i ons, [ or ]
condi t i on a gover nment al benef i t upon conduct t hat woul d vi ol at e
t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s. ) ; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers
v. City of Chicago, 342 F. 3d 752, 761 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) ( wi t hi n
t he meani ng of RFRA, a subst ant i al bur den on r el i gi ous exer ci se
i s one t hat f or ces adher ent s of a r el i gi on t o r ef r ai n f r om
r el i gi ousl y mot i vat ed conduct , i nhi bi t s or const r ai ns conduct or
expr essi on t hat mani f est s a cent r al t enet of a per son s
r el i gi ous bel i ef s, or compel s conduct or expr essi on t hat i s
cont r ar y t o t hese bel i ef s. ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
23
t hat compor t wi t h t he r el i gi ous bel i ef s of par t i cul ar

ci t i zens. . . . [ A] ppel l ees may not demand t hat t he
Gover nment j oi n i n t hei r chosen r el i gi ous pr ef er ences by
r ef r ai ni ng f r omusi ng a number t o i dent i f y t hei r daught er .
Id. at 699- 700. Ot her Supr eme Cour t deci si ons have si mi l ar l y
r ej ect ed f r ee exer ci se chal l enges t o l aws whi ch woul d not
r equi r e a pl ai nt i f f t o modi f y hi s own behavi or , but woul d per mi t
a t hi r d par t y t o engage i n behavi or t o whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f
obj ect s on r el i gi ous gr ounds. I n Lyng, t he Cour t r ej ect ed
Nat i ve Amer i can t r i bes chal l enge t o gover nment bui l di ng r oads
and har vest i ng t i mber on nat i onal f or est l and used by t he t r i bes
f or r el i gi ous pur poses. The Cour t expl ai ned gover nment
pr ogr ams, whi ch may make i t mor e di f f i cul t t o pr act i ce cer t ai n
r el i gi ons but whi ch have no t endency t o coer ce i ndi vi dual s i nt o
act i ng cont r ar y t o t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s, do not vi ol at e t he
Fi r st Amendment . 485 U. S. 439, 450 ( 1988) . The Fr ee Exer ci se
Cl ause i s wr i t t en i n t er ms of what t he gover nment cannot do t o
t he i ndi vi dual , not i n t er ms of what t he i ndi vi dual can exact
f r omt he gover nment . . . Id. at 451 ( quot i ng Sherbert, 374
U. S. at 412 ( Dougl as, J . , concur r i ng) ) .
I n t hi s case, t he Cour t does not doubt t he si ncer i t y of
Pl ai nt i f f s bel i ef s, nor does i t doubt t hat condemnat i on of
cont r acept i on i s cent r al t o t hei r exer ci se of t he Cat hol i c
r el i gi on. I t i s not wi t hi n t he j udi ci al ken t o quest i on t he
cent r al i t y of par t i cul ar bel i ef s or pr act i ces t o a f ai t h, or t he
24
val i di t y of par t i cul ar l i t i gant s i nt er pr et at i on of t hose

cr eeds. Hernandez v. Commr of Internal Revenue Serv., 490
U. S. 680, 699 ( 1989) . However , t o pr evai l under t he subst ant i al
bur den t est Pl ai nt i f f s must show mor e t han a gover nment al act i on
t hat vi ol at es t hei r si ncer el y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef s; t hey must
show t hat t he gover nment al act i on f or ces Pr i est s f or Li f e,
i t sel f , t o modi f y i t s own behavi or i n vi ol at i on of t hose
bel i ef s. Kaemmerling, 553 F. 3d at 679.
5
Thi s i s wher e
Pl ai nt i f f s RFRA chal l enge must f ai l - - l i ke t he chal l enges i n
Kaemmerling and Bowen, t he accommodat i ons t o t he cont r acept i ve
mandat e si mpl y do not r equi r e Pl ai nt i f f s t o modi f y t hei r
r el i gi ous behavi or . The accommodat i on speci f i cal l y ensur es t hat
pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces i s ent i r el y t he act i vi t y of
5
For t hi s r eason, inter alia, t he Cour t i s not per suaded by t he
r at i onal e ar t i cul at ed i n t wo r ecent cases t hat a pl ai nt i f f can
meet hi s bur den of est abl i shi ng t hat t he accommodat i on cr eat es a
subst ant i al bur den upon hi s exer ci se of r el i gi on si mpl y
because he cl ai ms i t t o be so. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese
of N.Y. v. Sebelius, No. 12- 2542, 2013 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 176432,
*44 ( E. D. N. Y. Dec. 13, 2013) ( st at i ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s consi der
[ compl et i ng t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on] t o be an endor sement of
[ cont r acept i ve ser vi ces] cover age t o whi ch t hey obj ect ; t o t hem,
t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on compel s af f i r mat i on of a r epugnant
bel i ef . I t i s not f or t hi s Cour t t o say ot her wi se. ) ; see also
Zubik v. Sebelius, No. 13- 1459, 2013 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 165922,
*79- *82 ( W. D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2013) ( r eachi ng t he same concl usi on) .
I n t hi s Cour t s vi ew, t hose opi ni ons mi sconcei ve RFRA s
subst ant i al bur den t est , whi ch r equi r es cour t s t o accept as
t r ue t he f act ual al l egat i ons t hat [ a pl ai nt i f f s] bel i ef s ar e
si ncer e and of a r el i gi ous nat ur e but not t he l egal
concl usi on, cast as a f act ual al l egat i on, t hat hi s r el i gi ous
exer ci se i s subst ant i al l y bur dened. Kaemmerling, 553 F. 3d at
679.
25
a t hi r d par t y namel y, t he i ssuer and Pr i est s f or Li f e pl ays

no r ol e i n t hat act i vi t y. As i n Kaemmerling, [ a] l t hough t he
[ t hi r d par t y] s act i vi t i es . . . may of f end [ pl ai nt i f f s]
r el i gi ous bel i ef s, t hey cannot be sai d t o hamper [ hi s] r el i gi ous
exer ci se. 553 F. 3d at 679.
Pr i est s f or Li f e at t empt s t o di st i ngui sh Kaemmerling on t he
gr ounds t hat Mr . Kaemmer l i ng di d not obj ect t o t he gover nment
t aki ng hi s f l ui d, hai r , or t i ssue sampl es; he onl y obj ect ed t o
t he subsequent ext r act i on and st or age of hi s DNA. Pr i est s f or
Li f e cl ai ms t hat i n t hi s case, t he cover age f or t he mor al l y
obj ect i onabl e cont r acept i ve cover age wi l l occur only because
Pr i est s f or Li f e has pl ayed an active role i n pur chasi ng a
heal t hcar e pl an and t hen aut hor i zi ng t he i ssuer of i t s pl an
t hr ough sel f - cer t i f i cat i on t o pr ovi de t he obj ect i onabl e
cover age di r ect l y t o i t s pl an par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es ( a
r ol e t hat i s pr ohi bi t ed by Pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi on) and t her eby
cooper at i ng wi t h and t hus f aci l i t at i ng t he gover nment s i l l i ci t
obj ect i ve t o i ncr ease access t o and ut i l i zat i on of
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces ( cooper at i on t hat i s pr ohi bi t ed by
Pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi on) . Pl s. Combi ned Opp n t o Govt s
Mot . / Repl y i n Suppor t of Pl s. Mot . ( her ei naf t er Pl s.
Opp n/ Repl y) at 23 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . The Cour t does not
f i nd t hi s di st i nct i on t o be meani ngf ul . The gover nment al act i on
i n Kaemmerling coul d not have occur r ed wi t hout t he pl ai nt i f f
26
pl ayi ng an act i ve r ol e by pr ovi di ng a bl ood sampl e.

Never t hel ess, t he cour t r ej ect ed cl ai ms t hat hi s act i on
const i t ut ed a subst ant i al bur den because t he act i on di d not , i n
and of i t sel f , vi ol at e pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi ous bel i ef s. The f act
t hat gover nment act i on t her eaf t er was deepl y of f ensi ve t o hi s
bel i ef s di d not gi ve r i se t o a RFRA cl ai m. See Kaemmerling, 553
F. 3d at 679 ( pl ai nt i f f s knowl edge t hat hi s st r ongl y hel d
bel i ef s had been vi ol at ed by a[ n] unhol y act of an oppr essi ve
r egi me was not enough t o vi ol at e t he RFRA because t he
gover nment s act i ons do not pr essur e hi mt o modi f y hi s own
behavi or i n any way t hat woul d vi ol at e hi s bel i ef s. ) ; see also
Bowen, 476 U. S. at 699- 700 ( r ej ect i ng pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t o
t he gover nment s use of hi s daught er s Soci al Secur i t y number
because i t may har mhi s daught er s spi r i t . . . . The Fr ee
Exer ci se Cl ause af f or ds an i ndi vi dual pr ot ect i on f r omcer t ai n
f or ms of gover nment al compul si on; i t does not af f or d an
i ndi vi dual a r i ght t o di ct at e t he conduct of t he Gover nment s
i nt er nal pr ocedur es. )
I n t hi s case, Pl ai nt i f f s asser t an obj ect i on t o a si ngl e
r equi r ement t he r egul at i ons i mpose on Pr i est s f or Li f e di r ect l y:
compl et i ng a sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or mst at i ng t hat i t i s a non-
pr of i t r el i gi ous or gani zat i on whi ch obj ect s t o pr ovi di ng
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces cover age. Pl s. Mot . at 7. However ,
dur i ng or al ar gument Pl ai nt i f f s conceded t hat t hey have no
27
r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m, i n and of

i t sel f . Rat her , Pl ai nt i f f s act under t he accommodat i ons
becomes bur densome onl y when i t i s char act er i zed as
cooper at i ng wi t h or pr ovi di ng aut hor i zat i on f or t he
gover nment s i l l i ci t goal of i ncr easi ng access t o and
ut i l i zat i on of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces. Pl s. Opp n/ Repl y at
23. But no mat t er how r el i gi ousl y of f ensi ve t he st at ut or y or
r egul at or y obj ect i ve may be, t he l aw does not vi ol at e RFRA
unl ess i t coer ces i ndi vi dual s i nt o act i ng cont r ar y t o t hei r
r el i gi ous bel i ef s. See Lyng, 458 U. S. at 450. I n t hi s case, i t
i s onl y t he subsequent act i ons of t hi r d par t i es t he
gover nment s and t he i ssuer s pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces, i n whi ch Pr i est s f or Li f e pl ays no r ol e t hat ani mat e
i t s r el i gi ous obj ect i ons. Under Bowen and Kaemmerling, however ,
RFRA does not per mi t Pl ai nt i f f s t o pr oscr i be t he conduct of
ot her s.
Pl ai nt i f f s r el i ance on Sherbert, Yoder, and Thomas i s
unavai l i ng. Pl s. Mot . at 21. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t hese
cases, par t i cul ar l y Thomas, est abl i shed t hat t he i mpact of a
subst ant i al bur den need not be di r ect . Id. at 20. I n each of
t hese cases, however , t he bur dens of t he gover nment al act i on
deni al of unempl oyment benef i t s f or r ef usal t o wor k on t he
Sabbat h or i n an ar mament s f act or y, t hr eat ened cr i mi nal
pr osecut i on f or r ef usi ng t o send chi l dr en t o school al l f el l
28
di r ect l y upon t he pl ai nt i f f s par t i ci pat i on i n or abst ent i on

f r oma speci f i c r el i gi ous pr act i ce. That i s not t he case her e;
once agai n, t he onl y act i on r equi r ed of Pr i est s f or Li f e under
t he accommodat i ons i s consistent wi t h i t s bel i ef s. I t i s onl y
t he i ndependent act i ons of t hi r d par t i es whi ch r esul t i n t he
avai l abi l i t y of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces. See Conestoga Wood
Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 917 F. Supp. 2d 394, 415 & n. 15
( E. D. Pa. 2013) ( expl ai ni ng t hat whi l e an i ndi r ect compulsion
may const i t ut e a subst ant i al bur den, l egi sl at i on whi ch i mposes
onl y an i ndi r ect burden on t he exer ci se of r el i gi on does not ) ,
affd 724 F. 3d 377 ( 3d Ci r . 2013) , cert. granted, 2013 U. S.
LEXI S 8418 ( U. S. Nov. 26, 2013) ( No. 13- 354) .
6

Thi s Ci r cui t s r ecent deci si on i n Gilardi does not al t er
t he anal ysi s. I n Gilardi, t he pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves ( t hr ough
6
The Cour t i s not per suaded by t he r at i onal e i n Archdiocese
of N.Y., whi ch st at es t hat compl et i ng t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on
f or m, i t sel f , amount s t o a subst ant i al bur den on t he pl ai nt i f f s
exer ci se of r el i gi on, because i f t hey do not compl et e t he f or m,
t hey ar e subj ect t o penal t i es or ot her f or ms of gover nment
coer ci on. See, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 2013 U. S.
Di st . LEXI S 176432, *32 ( st at i ng t hat RFRA s subst ant i al
bur den t est i s met by a f i ndi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f s f ace
subst ant i al pr essur e t o compl y wi t h t he l aw. ) The Cour t
agr ees wi t h t he r easoni ng of Kaemmerling, whi ch, i n t he Cour t s
vi ew, cor r ect l y i nt er pr et ed Sherbert, Yoder and Thomas t o hol d
t hat even a t hr eat of cr i mi nal sanct i on di d not amount t o a
subst ant i al bur den when i t di d not i mpact pl ai nt i f f s r el i gi ous
exer ci se. Kaemmerling, 553 F. 3d at 679 ( Al t hough t he [ t hi r d
par t y] s act i vi t i es . . . may of f end [ pl ai nt i f f s] r el i gi ous
bel i ef s, t hey cannot be sai d t o hamper [ hi s] r el i gi ous
exer ci se. )

29
t hei r compani es) had t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age f or t he

par t i ci pant s and benef i ci ar i es of t hei r pl an. The Ci r cui t
expl ai ned t hat t he Gi l ar di s wer e subst ant i al l y bur dened when
t hey had t o pl ace cont r acept i ve cover age i nt o t he basket of
goods and ser vi ces t hat const i t ut e [ t hei r compani es ] heal t hcar e
pl an. Gilardi, 733 F. 3d at 1218. The Ci r cui t r epeat ed t he
nat ur e of t he bur den l at er i n t he opi ni on, def i ni ng t he bur den
as a demand[ ] t hat owner s l i ke t he Gi l ar di s meani ngf ul l y
appr ove and endor se t he i ncl usi on of cont r acept i ve cover age i n
t hei r compani es empl oyer - pr ovi ded pl ans, over what ever
obj ect i ons t hey may have. Such an endor sement . . . i s a
compel [ l ed] af f i r mat i on of a r epugnant bel i ef . Id. at 1218
( quot i ng Sherbert, 374 U. S. at 402) . Pr i est s f or Li f e need do
none of t hose t hi ngs. I t need not pl ace cont r acept i ve cover age
i nt o t he basket of goods and ser vi ces t hat const i t ut e i t s
heal t hcar e pl an, nor must i t even permit, much l ess appr ove
and endor se such cover age i n i t s pl an. Gilardi, 733 F. 3d at
1217. On t he cont r ar y, Pr i est s f or Li f e need onl y r eaf f i r mi t s
r el i gi ousl y based opposi t i on t o pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve
cover age, at whi ch poi nt t hi r d par t i es wi l l pr ovi de t he cover age
separ at e and apar t f r omPr i est s For Li f e s pl an of benef i t s. I n
t he Cour t s vi ew, t he Ci r cui t s hol di ng on t he i ssue of
subst ant i al bur den i n Gilardi i s di st i ngui shabl e f r omt hi s case.
30
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

have not st at ed a prima facie case under RFRA because t hey have
not al l eged a subst ant i al bur den on t hei r r el i gi ous exer ci se.
Ther ef or e, Count I I of t he Compl ai nt wi l l be di smi ssed f or
f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m.
C. The Free Exercise Clause
The Fi r st Amendment pr ovi des t hat Congr ess shal l make no
l aw pr ohi bi t i ng t he f r ee exer ci se of r el i gi on. Hosanna-Tabor
Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C., 132 S. Ct .
694, 702 ( 2012) . The r i ght of f r ee exer ci se pr ot ect ed by t he
Fi r st Amendment does not r el i eve an i ndi vi dual of t he
obl i gat i on t o compl y wi t h a val i d and neut r al l aw of gener al
appl i cabi l i t y on t he gr ound t hat t he l aw pr oscr i bes ( or
pr escr i bes) conduct t hat hi s r el i gi on pr escr i bes ( or
pr oscr i bes) . Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 879
( 1990) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) . A l aw i s not neut r al i f t he obj ect
of [ t he] l aw i s t o i nf r i nge upon or r est r i ct pr act i ces because
of t hei r r el i gi ous mot i vat i on. Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of
Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 533 ( 1993) . A l aw i s not gener al l y
appl i cabl e i f i t i n a sel ect i ve manner i mpose[ s] bur dens onl y
on conduct mot i vat ed by r el i gi ous bel i ef s. Id. at 543.
Thi s Cour t agr ees wi t h t he vast maj or i t y of cour t s whi ch
have consi der ed t he i ssue and f ound t hat t he cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces r egul at i ons ar e neut r al and gener al l y appl i cabl e, and
31
accor di ngl y have r ej ect ed Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause chal l enges. See

Def s. Mot . at 32 n. 5 ( ci t i ng, e. g. , MK Chambers Co. v. U.S.
Dept of Health & Human Servs., U. S. Di st . LEXI S 47887, *13- 15
Case No. 13- 11379 ( E. D. Mi ch. Apr . 3, 2013) ; Conestoga, 917 F.
Supp. 2d at 409- 10; Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 2012 U. S. Di st .
LEXI S 184093, *23, Case No. 12- 1906 ( W. D. Mi ch. , Dec. 24, 2012) ,
affd 730 F. 3d 618 ( 6t h Ci r . 2013) , petition for cert. filed,
( U. S. Oct . 15, 2013) ( No. 13- 482) ; Hobby Lobby, 870 F. Supp. 2d
1278, 1289- 90 ( W. D. Okl . 2012) revd on other grounds, 723 F. 3d
1114) . Al t hough t hese cases do not speci f i cal l y addr ess t he
accommodat i ons t o t he mandat e at i ssue her e, not hi ng about t he
speci f i c r egul at i ons gover ni ng t he accommodat i ons l eads t o a
di f f er ent r esul t .
Pl ai nt i f f s do not di sput e t hat t he r egul at i ons st at ed
pur pose i s secul ar : t o pr omot e publ i c heal t h and gender
equal i t y. Never t hel ess, t hey ar gue t hat t he mandat e, and i t s
accommodat i ons, i s not neut r al because i t was desi gned t o
t ar get empl oyer s who r ef use t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve ser vi ces t o
t hei r empl oyees based on t he empl oyer s r el i gi ous bel i ef s.
Pl s. Mot . f or Pr el i m. I nj . 23- 24. They ci t e t he exempt i on f or
r el i gi ous empl oyer s as def i ned by 45 C. F. R. 147. 131( a) ,
whi ch appl i es onl y t o houses of wor shi p and t hei r i nt egr at ed
auxi l i ar i es, but not t o ot her r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons, and ar gue
t hat t he exempt i on di vi des r el i gi ous obj ect or s i nt o f avor ed and
32
di sf avor ed gr oups wi t hout any secul ar pur pose. Pl s. Mot . at

24.
As sever al ot her cour t s consi der i ng t he i ssue have f ound,
car vi ng out an exempt i on f or def i ned r el i gi ous ent i t i es does
not make a l aw nonneut r al as t o ot her s. Hobby Lobby, 870 F.
Supp. 2d at 1289 ( W. D. Okl . 2012) . I n ot her wor ds, t he neut r al
pur pose of t he r egul at i ons t o make cont r acept i ve cover age
avai l abl e t o women i s not al t er ed because t he l egi sl at ur e
chose t o exempt some r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons and not ot her s. On
t he cont r ar y, t he r el i gi ous empl oyer exempt i on pr esent s a
st r ong ar gument i n f avor of neut r al i t y, demonst r at i ng t hat t he
obj ect of t he l aw was not t o i nf r i nge upon or r est r i ct
pr act i ces because of t hei r r el i gi ous mot i vat i on. OBrien v.
U.S. Dept of Health & Human Servs., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1161
( E. D. Mo. 2012) ( quot i ng Lukumi, 508 U. S. at 533) ; see also
Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 7 N. E. 2d 510,
522 ( N. Y. 2006) , cert. denied, 552 U. S. 816 ( 2007) ( r ej ect i ng
Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause chal l enge t o st at e l aw r equi r i ng
cont r acept i ve cover age on gr ounds t hat t he l aw exempt ed some,
but not al l , r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons. To hol d t hat any
r el i gi ous exempt i on t hat i s not al l - i ncl usi ve r ender s a st at ut e
nonneut r al woul d be t o di scour age t he enact ment of any such
exempt i onsand t hus t o r est r i ct , r at her t han pr omot e, f r eedomof
r el i gi on. ) . I ndeed, Pr i est s f or Li f e i t sel f i s t he benef i ci ar y
33
of an accommodat i on t o t he r egul at i ons, whi ch was enact ed f or

t he pur pose of alleviating any bur den on i t s r el i gi ous pr act i ce.
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat a st at ement i n t he Over vi ew of t he
Fi nal Regul at i ons aut hor i zi ng t he r el i gi ous empl oyer exempt i on
f r omt he mandat e r eveal s a di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent t owar d al l
empl oyer s whi ch oppose cont r acept i ve cover age and whi ch do not
qual i f y f or t he exempt i on.
A gr oup heal t h pl an . . . qual i f i es f or t he [ r el i gi ous
empl oyer ] exempt i on i f , among ot her qual i f i cat i ons, t he
pl an i s est abl i shed and mai nt ai ned by an empl oyer t hat
pr i mar i l y empl oys per sons who shar e t he r el i gi ous t enet s of
t hat or gani zat i on . . . . Empl oyer s t hat do not pr i mar i l y
empl oy empl oyees who shar e t he r el i gi ous t enet s of t he
or gani zat i on ar e mor e l i kel y t o empl oy i ndi vi dual s who have
no r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o t he use of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces
and t her ef or e ar e mor e l i kel y t o use cont r acept i ves.
I ncl udi ng t hese empl oyer s wi t hi n t he scope of t he exempt i on
woul d subj ect t hei r empl oyees t o t he r el i gi ous vi ews of t he
empl oyer , l i mi t i ng access t o cont r acept i ves, and t her eby
i nhi bi t i ng t he use of cont r acept i ve ser vi ces and t he
benef i t s of pr event i ve car e.

Pl s. Mot . at 5, 24 ( quoting 77 Fed. Reg. 8724, 8728) . For t he
r easons j ust di scussed, t hi s comment l acks si gni f i cance i n t he
cont ext of a Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause cl ai m. I t mer el y expl ai ns
t hat t he r egul at i ons conf er t he speci al benef i t of an exempt i on
onl y f or t hose r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons t hat ar e essent i al l y
houses of wor shi p and t hei r i nt egr at ed auxi l i ar i es, and who
t her ef or e may be per mi t t ed t o gi ve empl oyment pr ef er ence t o
member s of t hei r own r el i gi on. See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. 2000e-
1( a) . That benef i t , as di scussed above, i s j ust i f i abl e as a
34
l egi sl at i ve accommodat i on- - an ef f or t t o al l evi at e a

gover nment al l y i mposed bur den on r el i gi ous exer ci se. Catholic
Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 85 P. 3d 67, 85
( Cal . 2004) . Those nonpr of i t r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons t hat do
not qual i f y f or t he exempt i on but never t hel ess ar e opposed t o
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces, l i ke Pr i est s f or Li f e, ar e al so el i gi bl e
f or an accommodat i on. Fi nal l y, empl oyer s t hat do not qual i f y
f or an exempt i on or accommodat i on ar e subj ect t o t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e i n t he same manner as al l ot her
empl oyer s, whet her r el i gi ous or non- r el i gi ous. Accor di ngl y,
whi l e t he r egul at i ons t r eat some [ ] empl oyer s wi t h r el i gi ous
obj ect i ons t o cont r acept i ve cover age mor e f avor abl y t han ot her
empl oyer s, i t does not under any ci r cumst ance t r eat [ empl oyer s
wi t h r el i gi ous obj ect i ons] l ess f avor abl y t han any ot her
empl oyer s. 85 P. 3d at 85. Ther ef or e, Pl ai nt i f f s neut r al i t y
ar gument f ai l s.
Pl ai nt i f f s al so cl ai mt hat t he l aw i s not one of gener al
appl i cabi l i t y because Congr ess has per mi t t ed exempt i ons f r om
t he r equi r ement s of t he Act , i ncl udi ng t hose f or gr andf at her ed
pl ans and cer t ai n r el i gi ous empl oyer s. Pl s. Mot . at 24. The
exi st ence of cat egor i cal exempt i ons, however , does not mean t hat
t he l aw does not appl y gener al l y. See, e.g., United States v.
Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 261 ( 1982) ( f i ndi ng soci al secur i t y t ax
r equi r ement s gener al l y appl i cabl e despi t e exi st ence of
35
cat egor i cal exempt i ons) . As t he Supr eme Cour t has hel d, l aws
ar e not gener al l y appl i cabl e when t hey i n a sel ect i ve manner
i mpose bur dens onl y on conduct mot i vat ed by r el i gi ous bel i ef s.
Lukumi, 508 U. S. at 543 ( i nval i dat i ng st at ut e whi ch pr ohi bi t ed
onl y t he r el i gi ous pr act i ce of ani mal sacr i f i ce, but not hunt i ng
or ot her secul ar pr act i ces i nvol vi ng ki l l i ng of ani mal s) . The
r egul at i ons i n t hi s case do not i mpose bur dens sel ect i vel y; t hey
appl y t o al l non- exempt empl oyer s, r egar dl ess of t hei r r el i gi ous
bel i ef s. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F. 3d 1109, 1134 ( 9t h
Ci r . 2009) ( phar maci st s who do not have a r el i gi ous obj ect i on
t o [ f i l l i ng pr escr i pt i ons f or cont r acept i ves] must compl y wi t h
t he r ul es t o t he same ext ent no mor e and no l esst han . . .
phar maci st s who may have a r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o [ f i l l i ng t he
pr escr i pt i ons] . Ther ef or e, t he r ul es ar e gener al l y
appl i cabl e. ) And agai n, t o t he ext ent t he accommodat i on al t er s
t he anal ysi s, i t pr omot es, not r est r i ct s, t he f r ee exer ci se of
r el i gi on by excusi ng f r omcompl i ance empl oyer s such as Pr i est s
f or Li f e due t o t hei r r el i gi ous bel i ef s.
Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he r egul at i ons, and
t he accommodat i ons, do not vi ol at e t he Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause.
Ther ef or e, Count I of t he Compl ai nt wi l l be di smi ssed f or
f ai l ur e t o st at e a cl ai m.

36
D. Freedom of Speech and Expressive Association

Pl ai nt i f f s next ar gue t hat t he accommodat i on t o t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e vi ol at es t hei r r i ght t o Fr ee
Speech and Expr essi ve Associ at i on under t he Fi r st Amendment .
They cl ai mt he accommodat i on compel s speech, i n vi ol at i on of
t hei r deepl y hel d r el i gi ous bel i ef s, by r equi r i ng t hemt o
compl et e t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m, whi ch t hen l eads t o
Pr i est s f or Li f e s i nsur er pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age.
Pl s. Mot . at 31. They cl ai mt he same r equi r ement vi ol at es
t hei r r i ght t o associ at e, whi ch t hey do f or t he pur pose of
expr essi ng a message t hat rejects t he pr omot i on and use of
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces. Id. at 29.
As Def endant s poi nt out , ever y cour t t o r evi ew a Fr ee
Speech chal l enge t o t he pr i or cont r acept i ve- cover age r egul at i ons
has r ej ect ed i t . Def s. Mot . at 35 ( ci t i ng, e. g. , MK Chambers
Co., 2013 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 47887, *15- 17; Conestoga, 917 F.
Supp. 2d at 418; Autocam, 2012 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 184093, *23-
*25) . These cases r el y on Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic &
Institutional Rights, Inc., ( FAIR) , a case Pl ai nt i f f s do not
addr ess. I n FAIR, t he Cour t r ej ect ed a f r ee speech and
expr essi ve associ at i on chal l enge t o t he Sol omon Amendment , a
st at ut e t hat condi t i oned f eder al f undi ng t o l aw school s upon
t hei r agr eement t o per mi t mi l i t ar y r ecr ui t er s on campus. The
Cour t f ound t hat t he st at ut e nei t her l i mi t s what l aw school s
37
may say nor r equi r es t hemt o say anyt hi ng. Law school s r emai n
f r ee . . . t o expr ess what ever vi ews t hey may have on t he
mi l i t ar y . . . t he [ st at ut e] r egul at es conduct not speech. I t
af f ect s what l aw school s must do af f or d access t o mi l i t ar y
r ecr ui t er s not what t hey may or may not say. FAIR, 547 U. S.
at 60. The Cour t f ound t hat t o t he ext ent t hat compl yi ng wi t h
t he Amendment r equi r ed t he school t o speak, such as by sendi ng
emai l s or post i ng not i ces on behal f of mi l i t ar y r ecr ui t er s, such
speech was pl ai nl y i nci dent al t o t he . . . r egul at i on of
conduct . Id. at 62. I t has never been deemed an abr i dgment
of f r eedomof speech . . . t o make a cour se of conduct i l l egal
mer el y because such conduct was i n par t i ni t i at ed, evi denced, or
car r i ed out by means of l anguage, ei t her spoken, wr i t t en, or
pr i nt ed. Id. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .
A si mi l ar anal ysi s appl i es t o t hi s case. The r egul at i ons
r egar di ng cont r acept i ve cover age, i ncl udi ng t he accommodat i on,
pl ace no l i mi t s on what Pl ai nt i f f s may say; t hey r emai n f r ee t o
oppose cont r acept i ve cover age f or al l peopl e and i n al l f or ms.
Rat her , t he accommodat i on r egul at es conduct ; speci f i cal l y, t he
conduct of Pr i est s f or Li f e s i nsur ance pr ovi der . And l i ke t he
l aw school s i n FAIR, t he onl y speech t he accommodat i ons r equi r e
of Pr i est s f or Li f e i s i nci dent al t o t he r egul at i on of conduct .
Pr i est s f or Li f e s speech i n t hi s case i s i t s sel f - cer t i f i cat i on
t hat i t opposes cont r acept i ve cover age. Thi s speech i s
38
necessar y onl y because i t i s at t endant t o t he r egul at i on of

conduct , speci f i cal l y, t he i nsur ance company s pr ovi si on of
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces. I ndeed, t he speech at i ssue i n t hi s
case i s even f ar t her f r oma Fi r st Amendment vi ol at i on t han t he
speech i n FAIR; i n t hat case, t he speech was i nci dent al t o t he
l aw school s conduct , whi l e i n t hi s case t he speech i s
i nci dent al t o t he conduct of a whol l y separ at e ent i t y. And i n
any event , t he speech at i ssue her e i s i n accordance wi t h
Pr i est s f or Li f e s r el i gi ous bel i ef s, not f undament al l y opposed
t o i t . Cf. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624
( 1943) ( i nval i dat i ng st at e l aw r equi r i ng J ehovah s Wi t ness
school chi l dr en t o r eci t e t he Pl edge of Al l egi ance and t o sal ut e
t he f l ag) ; Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 ( 1977) , ( st r i ki ng
down l aw t hat r equi r ed J ehovah s Wi t nesses t o di spl ay t he st at e
mot t oLi ve Fr ee or Di eon t hei r l i cense pl at es) .
Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue st r enuousl y i n t hei r mot i on t hat because
opposi t i on t o cont r acept i on i s a f undament al par t of t hei r
or gani zat i onal message, any pr ovi si on of cont r acept i ve cover age
by any ot her par t y must necessar i l y i nt er f er e wi t h t hat message
and t her ef or e be consi der ed compel l ed speech. See Pl s. Mot . at
28- 32. But t hi s i s not t he t est f or compel l ed speech i n
vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment . As t he Cour t hel d i n FAIR,
one speaker who i s f or ced t o host anot her speaker s message may
onl y asser t a compel l ed- speech vi ol at i on when t he message i t i s
39
f or ced t o host i s i nher ent l y expr essi ve. FAIR, 547 U. S. at

64. For exampl e, t he expr essi ve nat ur e of a par ade was a key
par t of t he hol di ng i n Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian,
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 568 ( 1995) .
Li kewi se, i n Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility
Commission of California, 475 U. S. 1 ( 1986) , t he compel l ed
i ncl usi on of a t hi r d par t y newsl et t er al ong wi t h Paci f i c Gas s
own newsl et t er i nt er f er ed wi t h t he ut i l i t y s abi l i t y t o
communi cat e i t s own message i n i t s newsl et t er . FAIR, 547 U. S.
at 64. By cont r ast , t her e i s not hi ng i nher ent l y expr essi ve
about Pr i est s For Li f e s insurer, whol l y separ at e f r omPr i est s
f or Li f e, pr ovi di ng cont r acept i ve cover age, j ust as t her e i s
not hi ng i nher ent l y expr essi ve about a l aw school s deci si on t o
al l ow r ecr ui t er s on campus. Id., see al so Autocam Corp. v.
Sebelius, 2012 U. S. Di st . LEXI S 184093, *23.
7

7
Pr i est s f or Li f e al so ar gues t hat t he ACA s r equi r ement
t hat cont r acept i ve cover age i ncl ude pat i ent educat i on and
counsel i ng f or women const i t ut es pr ohi bi t ed speech because i t
advocat es a par t i cul ar vi ewpoi nt or cont ent . See Pl s.
Opp n/ Repl y at 28. Thi s Cour t agr ees wi t h t he Conestoga cour t ,
whi ch consi der ed and r ej ect ed t he same ar gument , expl ai ni ng,
[ w] hi l e t he r egul at i ons mandat e t hat [ i nsur ance compani es]
pr ovi de cover age f or educat i on and counsel i ng f or women wi t h
r epr oduct i ve capaci t y, whi ch may i ncl ude i nf or mat i on about t he
cont r acept i ves whi ch Pl ai nt i f f s bel i eve t o be i mmor al , t hey ar e
si l ent wi t h r espect t o t he cont ent of t he counsel i ng gi ven t o a
pat i ent by her doct or . . . . As such, i t cannot be sai d t hat
Pl ai nt i f f s ar e bei ng r equi r ed t o [ host ] t he advocacy of a
vi ewpoi nt wi t h whi ch t hey di sagr ee. Pl ai nt i f f s concer n t hat a
doct or may, i n some i nst ances, pr ovi de advi ce t o a pat i ent t hat
di f f er s f r om[ pl ai nt i f f s ] r el i gi ous bel i ef s i s not one
40
Pl ai nt i f f s expr essi ve associ at i on cl ai mi s al so devoi d of

mer i t . The gover nment vi ol at es expr essi ve associ at i on r i ght s
under t he Fi r st Amendment by di r ect l y i nt er f er i ng wi t h an
associ at i on s composi t i on by f or ci ng t hemt o accept member s or
hi r e empl oyees who woul d si gni f i cant l y af f ect [ t he
associ at i on s] expr essi on, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530
U. S. 640, 656 ( 2000) . I t may al so i nf r i nge on t he f r eedomof
expr essi ve associ at i on by passi ng l aws r equi r i ng di scl osur e of
anonymous member shi p l i st s, or i mposi ng penal t i es or wi t hhol di ng
benef i t s based on member shi p i n a di sf avor ed gr oup. Brown v.
Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Comm., 459 U. S. 87, 101- 02
( 1982) ; Healy v. James, 408 U. S. 169, 180- 84 ( 1972) . These l aws
wer e i nval i dat ed because t hey made gr oup member shi p l ess
at t r act i ve, r ai si ng [ ] Fi r st Amendment concer ns af f ect i ng t he
gr oup s abi l i t y t o expr ess i t s message. FAIR, 547 U. S. at 69.
By cont r ast , t he pr esence of mi l i t ar y r ecr ui t er s on a l aw school
campus has no si mi l ar ef f ect on a l aw school s associ at i onal
r i ght s. St udent s and f acul t y ar e f r ee t o associ at e t o voi ce
t hei r di sappr oval of t he mi l i t ar y s message; not hi ng about t he
st at ut e af f ect s t he composi t i on of t he gr oup by maki ng gr oup
member shi p l ess desi r abl e. . . . A mi l i t ar y r ecr ui t er s mer e
pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment . Conestoga, 917 F. Supp. 2d

at 419 ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

41
pr esence on campus does not vi ol at e a l aw school s r i ght t o

associ at e, r egar dl ess of how r epugnant t he l aw school consi der s
t he r ecr ui t er s message. Id. at 69- 70.
As i n FAIR, t he r egul at i ons and accommodat i ons do not
vi ol at e Pl ai nt i f f s r i ght t o associ at e. The r egul at i ons and
accommodat i ons i n no way r est r i ct Pr i est s f or Li f e s member s,
empl oyees, and donor s f r omassoci at i ng t o expr ess t hei r
opposi t i on t o cont r acept i on. Not hi ng about t he r egul at i ons or
t he accommodat i ons f or ce Pl ai nt i f f s t o accept member s or
empl oyees i t does not desi r e, nor do t hey make gr oup member shi p
l ess desi r abl e as i n Socialist Workers 74 or i n Healy. Li ke
t he pl ai nt i f f s i n FAIR, t her e can be no doubt t hat Pl ai nt i f f s
f i nd t he cont ent of t he r egul at i ons r epugnant t o t hei r r el i gi ous
bel i ef s. See Compl . at 87- 8, 90 ( expl ai ni ng i t s bel i ef s t hat
access t o cont r acept i on har ms women, i s gr avel y i mmor al , and
a gr ave si n. ) . However , t he f act t hat a t hi r d par t y pr ovi des
cont r acept i ve cover age t o Pr i est s f or Li f e s empl oyees, separ at e
f r omPr i est s f or Li f e or i t s empl oyer - sponsor ed heal t h pl an,
does not af f ect t he gr oup s abi l i t y t o expr ess i t s message under
t he Fi r st Amendment , and t her ef or e does not vi ol at e i t s
associ at i onal r i ght s.
The gover nment has not compel l ed pl ai nt i f f s t o speak, nor
has i t vi ol at ed t hei r r i ght s t o expr essi ve associ at i on.
Accor di ngl y, Count I I I of t he Compl ai nt wi l l be di smi ssed.
42
E. Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause

The Est abl i shment Cl ause pr ohi bi t s t he gover nment f r om
showi ng a pr ef er ence f or any r el i gi ous denomi nat i on over
anot her . Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244 ( 1982) .
Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat t he cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e, i t s
exempt i on f or r el i gi ous empl oyer s, and i t s accommodat i ons cr eat e
an i mper mi ssi bl e gover nment pr ef er ence i n f avor of chur ches and
r el i gi ous or der s over ot her r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons. Pl s.
Opp n/ Repl y at 29- 30. As wi t h Pl ai nt i f f s Fr ee Speech/
Expr essi ve Associ at i on Cl ai m, def endant s poi nt out t hat ever y
cour t t o consi der an Est abl i shment Cl ause chal l enge t o t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e has r ej ect ed i t . Def s. Mot . at
39 ( ci t i ng, e. g. , OBrien, 894 F. Supp. 2d at 1162; Conestoga,
917 F. Supp. 2d at 416- 17) . As t hese cour t s f ound, t he
r egul at i ons per mi t t he gover nment t o di st i ngui sh bet ween
r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons based on st r uct ur e and pur pose when
gr ant i ng r el i gi ous accommodat i ons, whi ch i s not pr ohi bi t ed under
t he Est abl i shment Cl ause. See, e.g., OBrien, 894 F. Supp. 2d
at 1163- 4 ( col l ect i ng cases) .
8

8
Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai mt hat under Larson, t he gover nment i s
pr ohi bi t ed f r ommaki ng ot her di st i nct i ons among t ypes of
r el i gi ous i nst i t ut i ons, i n addi t i on t o denomi nat i onal
pr ef er ences. Pl s. Opp n/ Repl y at 31- 32. Pl ai nt i f f s mi sr ead
Larson. The Larson cour t i nval i dat ed t he st at ut e at i ssue not
because i t di st i ngui shed bet ween di f f er ent t ypes of
or gani zat i ons based on t hei r st r uct ur e or pur pose, but r at her
because i t was dr af t ed wi t h t he expl i ci t i nt ent i on of i ncl udi ng
43
Pl ai nt i f f s do not addr ess t hi s aut hor i t y. The cr ux of t hei r

ar gument r est s on a st at ement i n t he Over vi ew of t he Fi nal
Regul at i ons aut hor i zi ng t he r el i gi ous empl oyer exempt i on f r om
t he mandat e, whi ch st at es i n r el evant par t :
A gr oup heal t h pl an . . . qual i f i es f or t he [ r el i gi ous
empl oyer ] exempt i on i f , among ot her qual i f i cat i ons, t he
pl an i s est abl i shed and mai nt ai ned by an empl oyer t hat
pr i mar i l y empl oys per sons who shar e t he r el i gi ous t enet s of
t hat or gani zat i on . . . . Empl oyer s t hat do not
pr i mar i l y empl oy empl oyees who shar e t he r el i gi ous t enet s
of t he or gani zat i on ar e mor e l i kel y t o empl oy i ndi vi dual s
who have no r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o t he use of cont r acept i ve
ser vi ces and t her ef or e ar e mor e l i kel y t o use
cont r acept i ves. I ncl udi ng t hese empl oyer s wi t hi n t he scope
of t he exempt i on woul d subj ect t hei r empl oyees t o t he
r el i gi ous vi ews of t he empl oyer , l i mi t i ng access t o
cont r acept i ves, and t her eby i nhi bi t i ng t he use of
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces and t he benef i t s of pr event i ve car e.

Pl s. Mot . at 35 ( quoting 77 Fed. Reg. at 8728) ; Pl s.
Opp n/ Repl y at 33 ( same) . The Cour t has al r eady consi der ed
t hi s st at ement i n t he cont ext of Pl ai nt i f f s Fr ee Exer ci se
Cl ause chal l enge and f ound i t const i t ut i onal l y per mi ssi bl e. See
supra at I I I . C. Nor does i t vi ol at e t he Est abl i shment Cl ause,
because i t del i neat es t he cont our s of a r el i gi ous accommodat i on
t hat appl i es equal l y t o or gani zat i ons of ever y f ai t h and does
not f avor any denomi nat i on over anot her . See, e.g., Walz v. Tax
Commn of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664 ( 1970) ( r ej ect i ng
Est abl i shment Cl ause chal l enge t o l aw exempt i ng f r ompr oper t y
par t i cul ar r el i gi ous denomi nat i ons and excl udi ng ot her s. 456
U. S. at 254.
44
t axes pr oper t y of r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons used excl usi vel y f or
r el i gi ous wor shi p) ; Droz v. Commr of IRS, 48 F. 3d 1120, 1124
( 9t h Ci r . 1995) ( uphol di ng Soci al Secur i t y t ax exempt i on onl y
f or member s of or gani zed r el i gi ous sect s, despi t e t he f act t hat
some i ndi vi dual s r ecei ve exempt i ons, and ot her i ndi vi dual s wi t h
i dent i cal bel i ef s do not , because t he pur pose of t he exempt i on
was not t o di scr i mi nat e among r el i gi ous denomi nat i ons) .
Pl ai nt i f f s Equal Pr ot ect i on cl ai mi s i dent i cal t o i t s
ot her Fi r st Amendment Cl ai ms: t hey cl ai mt he r egul at i ons,
r el i gi ous empl oyer exempt i on and accommodat i on i mpi nge on
Pr i est s f or Li f e s f undament al r i ght t o f r ee exer ci se of
r el i gi on, f r eedomof speech and expr essi ve associ at i on. Pl s.
Mot . at 33. The Cour t has al r eady r ej ect ed t hese under l yi ng
cl ai ms, however . Wher e a pl ai nt i f f s Fi r st Amendment f r ee
exer ci se cl ai mhas f ai l ed, t he Supr eme Cour t has appl i ed onl y
r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny i n i t s subsequent r evi ew of an equal
pr ot ect i on f undament al r i ght t o r el i gi ous f r ee exer ci se cl ai m
based on t he same f act s. Wirzburger v. Galvin, 412 F. 3d 271,
282- 83 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712, 721
( 2004) . Appl yi ng r at i onal basi s scr ut i ny t o t he f undament al
r i ght s- based cl ai mt hat t he r egul at i ons vi ol at e equal
pr ot ect i on, t he Cour t has no t r oubl e det er mi ni ng t hat t he
cont r acept i ve ser vi ces mandat e i s r at i onal l y r el at ed t o t he
l egi t i mat e gover nment pur poses of pr omot i ng publ i c heal t h and
45
gender equal i t y. See, e.g., Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 533 ( 1973) . I ndeed, Pl ai nt i f f s do not ar gue t hat t he
r egul at i ons woul d f ai l such r evi ew.
The Pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o st at e a cl ai munder t he
Est abl i shment Cl ause or t he Equal Pr ot ect i on Cl ause. Ther ef or e,
Count s I V and V wi l l be di smi ssed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he def endant s mot i on t o
di smi ss al l count s of Pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt i s GRANTED;
accor di ngl y, t he par t i es cr oss mot i ons f or summar y j udgment ar e
DENIED AS MOOT. An appr opr i at e Or der accompani es t hi s
Memor andumOpi ni on.
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
December 19, 2013


Priests For Life, Et Al., v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Priests For Life, Et Al., v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPEAL,TYPE-L

U.S. District Court

The i nst ant case pr esent s a di f f er ent i ssue: t he

Act , 42 U. S. C. 2000bb, et seq. ( RFRA) , and t he Fi r st and

cer t i f i cat i on; i t i s t he i ssuer s subsequent pr ovi si on of

deep devot i on t o t he Cat hol i c f ai t h i s cent r al t o t he mi ssi on of

st udy on pr event i ve ser vi ces. On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopt ed

t o i n sect i on 6033( a) ( 3) ( A) ( i ) or ( a) ( 3) ( A) ( i i i ) of t he I nt er nal

The par t i es agr ee t hat Pr i est s f or Li f e does not qual i f y

Pl ai nt i f f s f r ee exer ci se of r el i gi on. Gilardi, 733 F. 3d at

see al so id. 105 ( Pr i est s f or Li f e obj ect s t o bei ng f or ced by

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

accept l egal concl usi ons cast i n t he f or mof f act ual

v. U.S. Navy, 813 F. 2d 1236, 1241 ( D. C. Ci r . 1987) . I n

par t i es agr eed t hat i t i s unnecessar y f or t he Cour t t o addr ess

Fi r st Amendment does not exempt an i ndi vi dual f r oma l aw t hat i s

or der t o accept wor k. 374 U. S. at 404. I n Yoder, t he i mpact

F. 3d at 1217. The cont r acept i ve mandat e, as appl i ed t o

subst ant i al l y bur dens t hei r exer ci se of r el i gi on because t he

savi ngs t o t he i nsur er by i t s pr ovi si on of such cover age. Pl s.

Def endant s do not quest i on t he si ncer i t y of Pl ai nt i f f s

because t he gover nment was not f or ci ng hi mt o modi f y hi s own

t hat compor t wi t h t he r el i gi ous bel i ef s of par t i cul ar

val i di t y of par t i cul ar l i t i gant s i nt er pr et at i on of t hose

a t hi r d par t y namel y, t he i ssuer and Pr i est s f or Li f e pl ays

pl ayi ng an act i ve r ol e by pr ovi di ng a bl ood sampl e.

r el i gi ous obj ect i on t o t he sel f - cer t i f i cat i on f or m, i n and of

di r ect l y upon t he pl ai nt i f f s par t i ci pat i on i n or abst ent i on

t hei r compani es) had t o pr ovi de cont r acept i ve cover age f or t he

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he Cour t f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f s

accor di ngl y have r ej ect ed Fr ee Exer ci se Cl ause chal l enges. See

di sf avor ed gr oups wi t hout any secul ar pur pose. Pl s. Mot . at

of an accommodat i on t o t he r egul at i ons, whi ch was enact ed f or

l egi sl at i ve accommodat i on- - an ef f or t t o al l evi at e a

D. Freedom of Speech and Expressive Association

necessar y onl y because i t i s at t endant t o t he r egul at i on of

f or ced t o host i s i nher ent l y expr essi ve. FAIR, 547 U. S. at

Pl ai nt i f f s expr essi ve associ at i on cl ai mi s al so devoi d of

pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment . Conestoga, 917 F. Supp. 2d

pr esence on campus does not vi ol at e a l aw school s r i ght t o

E. Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause

Pl ai nt i f f s do not addr ess t hi s aut hor i t y. The cr ux of t hei r

gender equal i t y. See, e.g., Dept of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

You might also like