Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health

Citation733 F.3d 1208
Decision Date01 November 2013
Docket NumberNo. 13–5069.,13–5069.
PartiesFrancis A. GILARDI, et al., Appellants v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Validity Called into Doubt

45 C.F.R. § 147.130

Francis J. Manion, pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Colby M. May and Carly F. Gammill.

Kimberlee Wood Colby was on the brief for amici curiae Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, et al., in support of appellants.

Deborah J. Dewart was on the brief for amicus curiae Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation in support of appellants.

Dwight G. Duncan was on the brief for amici curiae 28 Catholic Theologians, et al. in support of appellants.

Lawrence J. Joseph was on the brief for amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund in support of appellants.

William Lee Saunders, Jr. was on the brief for amici curiae American Association of Pro–Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. in support of appellants.

Dorinda C. Bordlee was on the brief for amici curiae Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition, et al. in support of appellants.

Noel J. Francisco was on the brief for amicus curiae Archdiocese of Cincinnati in support of appellants.

Michael Dewine, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio, and Jennifer L. Pratt, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief for amicus curiae State of Ohio in support of appellants.

Michael F. Smith was on the brief for amicus curiae Life Legal Defense Foundation in support of appellants.

Alisa B. Klein, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the briefs were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Mark B. Stern, Attorneys.

Lisa S. Blatt, Robert J. Katerberg, Andrew S. Macurdy, and Julianna S. Gonen were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Reproductive Rights, et al. in support of appellees.

Charles E. Davidow and Marcia D. Greenberger were on the brief for amici curiae American Association of University Women, et al. in support of appellees.

Ayesha N. Khan, Gregory M. Lipper, and Daniel Mach were on the brief for amici curiae Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. in support of appellees.

Michelle A. Kisloff was on the brief for amici curiae Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, et al. in support of appellees.

Martha Jane Perkins was on the brief for amici curiae National Health Law Program, et al. in support of appellees.

Jennifer C. Pizer, Camilla B. Taylor, and Thomas W. Ude, Jr. were on the brief for amicus curiae Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. in support of appellees.

Bruce H. Schneider was on the brief for amici curiae Physicians for Reproductive Health, et al. in support of appellees.

Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN, with whom Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS joins except as to parts VI, VII, and VIII, and with whom Senior Circuit Judge RANDOLPH joins except as to parts III and IV.

Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.

BROWN, Circuit Judge.

Two years after our decision Seven–Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C.Cir.2011), we are asked to revisit the behemoth known as the Affordable Care Act. This time, however, we are not confronted with a question of constitutional authority. Instead, we must determine whether the contraceptive mandate imposed by the Act trammels the right of free exercise—a right that lies at the core of our constitutional liberties—as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We conclude it does.

I

Two brothers, Francis and Philip Gilardi, are equal owners of Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics—both companies are closely-held corporations that have elected to be taxed under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code. The two companies collectively employ about 400 employees and operate a self-insured health plan through a third-party administrator and stop-loss provider.

As adherents of the Catholic faith, the Gilardis oppose contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Accordingly, the two brothers—exercising their powers as owners and company executives—excluded coverage of products and services falling under these categories.

But along came the Affordable Care Act. Part of the Act directs all group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide, without cost-sharing requirements, preventive care as determined by the Health Resources and Services Administration. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–13(a)(4). In turn, the Administration issued guidelines requiring coverage for “all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” as prescribed by a healthcare provider. Women's Preventive Services Guidelines,Health Res. & Servs. Admin.,, http:// www. hrsa. gov/ womens guidelines/; see Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, 77 Fed.Reg. 8725, 8725–26 (Feb. 15, 2012) (citing the online HRSA Guidelines); see also29 C.F.R. § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. 147.131(c).1 There are exceptions—some ephemeral, some permanent—for grandfathered plans, religious organizations, and small businesses. See26 U.S.C. § 4980H(a); id. § 4980H(c)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 18011; 45 C.F.R. §§ 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A)-(B). But the Freshway companies do not fall into any of these categories. As a result, the Gilardis were faced with two choices: adjust their companies' plans to provide the mandated contraceptive services in contravention of their religious beliefs, or pay a penalty amounting to over $14 million per year. 2

Finding themselves on the horns of an impossible dilemma, the Gilardis and their companies filed suit in district court, alleging the contraceptive mandate violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., the Free Exercise Clause, the Free Speech Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, but the district court denied their request. With respect to the Freshway companies, the court determined they could not “exercise”religion and thus no substantial burden on religious exercise was demonstrable under RFRA. As for the Gilardis, the court found any burden on the Gilardis' religious beliefs was indirect.

The plaintiffs timely filed an interlocutory appeal and moved for an injunction pending appeal. After having initially denied their motion, we issued, sua sponte, an order giving them a temporary reprieve from the mandate.

II

Our standard of review for a denial of a preliminary injunction rests upon what aspect of the district court's decision we are examining. Insofar as our review concerns the district court's consideration of the preliminary-injunction factors and the ultimate decision to grant or deny the injunction, we review for an abuse of discretion. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1178 (D.C.Cir.2012). But we review the legal conclusions underlying the decision de novo and review findings of fact for clear error. Id.;Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C.Cir.2006).

“In ruling on a preliminary injunction a key issue—often the dispositive one—is whether the movant has shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 639 F.3d 1078, 1083 (D.C.Cir.2011). To determine this likelihood, we must answer whether the contraceptive mandate of 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), as applied to the Appellants, violates their free-exercise rights as protected by RFRA. As the parties have made eminently clear, we must separately examine the claims by the Freshway companies and their owners.

III

We begin with the Freshway companies. Before addressing the merits of their RFRA claim, we must first ask whether they may bring the challenge at all. The statute allows [a] person whose religious exercise has been burdened” to seek judicial relief, but leaves us bereft of guidance on who a “person” is. See42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1(c) (emphasis added).

For at least one of our sister circuits (as well as the Appellants), the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S.C. § 1, dispositively answers the question. See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1129, 1132 (10th Cir.2013) (en banc). Under the Act, the definition of “person” extends to “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies”—in other words, it encompasses the corporeal and the incorporeal. 1 U.S.C. § 1. The Freshway companies largely depend on the Dictionary Act's elision of the differences in identity, hoping it applies to their RFRA claim.

But the focus on personhood is too narrow; instead, we must construe the term “person” together with the phrase “exercise of religion.” See Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644, 668 (D.C.Cir.2008) (“Because RFRA prohibits the Government from ‘substantially burden[ing] a person's exercise of religion’ instead of simply the exercise of religion, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1(a), we must construe ‘person’ as qualifying ‘exercise of religion.’ (emphasis in original)), vacated and remanded on other grounds by555 U.S. 1083, 129 S.Ct. 763, 172 L.Ed.2d 753 (2008); see also42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1(c) (“A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may ... obtain appropriate relief against a government.” (emphasis added)). And RFRA provides us with no helpful definition of “exercise of religion”; all we can glean from the statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 8 Julio 2020
    ...... contraceptive coverage to their employees through their group health plans. Though contraceptive coverage is not required by (or even mentioned ...Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. , 778 F.3d 422 (CA3 2015) ; Priests for Life ...Sebelius , 735 F.3d 654 (CA7 2013) ; Gilardi v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs. , 733 F.3d 1208 (CADC ...By introducing a limitation not found in the statute, respondents ask us to alter, rather than to interpret, the ACA. See Nichols , 578 U. S., at ......
  • Grace Sch. v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • 27 Diciembre 2013
    ......Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:12–CV–459 JD. ...1425 (“Thomas drew a [religious] line, and it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.”). ...v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.2013); Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C.Cir.2013), are ......
  • Korte v. Sebelius
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 8 Noviembre 2013
    ......Kathleen SEBELIUS, Secretary of Health & Human Services, et al., Defendants–Appellees. William D. Grote, III; ... [735 F.3d 665]         The case from Southern Illinois reached us first, just before the January 1, 2013 deadline for compliance with the ... Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 13–5069, 733 F.3d 1208, ......
  • Life v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ......That strikes us as “a fantastic suggestion.” Notre Dame, 743 F.3d at 556. There, as here, the feature that ... their initial briefs on appeal, the government conceded that this Court's decision in Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C.Cir.2013), vacated, ––– ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT