Most Reverend David A. Zubik v. Sebelius

• Decision Date: 21 November 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 13cv1459,13cv0303 Erie.,s. 13cv1459
• Citation: 983 F.Supp.2d 576
• Parties: Most Reverend David A. ZUBIK, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, a Charitable Trust, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen SEBELIUS, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. Most Reverend Lawrence T. Persico, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, a Charitable Trust, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kathleen Sebelius, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

983 F.Supp.2d 576

Most Reverend David A. ZUBIK, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, a Charitable Trust, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Kathleen SEBELIUS, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.

Most Reverend Lawrence T. Persico, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, a Charitable Trust, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Kathleen Sebelius, In Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 13cv1459, 13cv0303 Erie.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 21, 2013.

Validity Called into Doubt

42 U.S.C.A. § 300gg–13; 45 C.F.R. §§ 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(b).

John D. Goetz, Leon F. DeJulius, Paul M. Pohl, Ira M. Karoll, Mary Pat Stahler, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Jeffrey A. McSorley, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Bradley P. Humphreys, Michelle Bennett, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (13–CV–1459: DOC. NO. 4; 13–CV–0303E: DOC. NO. 6)

ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Presently before the Court are two cases which challenge the application of provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). These cases present the Court with the issue of whether the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie, which are exempt from provisions of the ACA requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptive products, services, and counseling (“the contraceptive mandate”), are divisible from their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related charitable and educational organizations which, under the current provisions, will be compelled to facilitate/initiate coverage of contraceptive products, services, and counseling, beginning January 1, 2014, in violation of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.¹

On October 8, 2013, in the Pittsburgh division of the United States District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs: Most Reverend David A. Zubik, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, a charitable trust; the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, as the Beneficial Owner of the Pittsburgh series of the Catholic Benefits Trust; and Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Inc. (“Pittsburgh Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint in which they assert eight causes of action against Defendants: United States Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, and their respective Secretaries. Zubik v. Sebelius, Civil Action 2:13–cv–1459, 983 F.Supp.2d 576, 2013 WL 6118696 (W.D.Pa.2013). Pittsburgh Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction, asking this Court to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the issuance, application, and enforcement of the contraceptive mandate, as codified in 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv). Doc. No. 4.

Also, on October 8, 2013, in the Erie division of this District Court, Plaintiffs: Most Reverend Lawrence T. Persico, as Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, a charitable trust; the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie; St. Martin Center, Inc.; Prince of Peace Center, Inc.; and Erie Catholic Preparatory School (“Erie Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint in which they assert the same eight causes of action against the same Defendants (“the Government”) related to the implementation of the contraceptive mandate of the ACA. Persico v. Sebelius, Civil Action 1:13–cv–303 (W.D.Pa.2013). Erie Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction asking the Court to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the issuance, application, and enforcement of the contraceptive mandate, as codified in 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv). Doc. No. 6.

Plaintiffs allege that the contraceptive mandate, as applied via the “accommodation,” requires them to facilitate/initiate the process for providing health insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, contraceptives, and related educational and counseling services (“contraceptive products, services, and counseling”). The Dioceses, as “religious employers,” are exempt from these provisions. See generally Stipulations of Fact, ¶ 31; 13–cv–1459, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 44–46. A safe harbor for non-grandfathered, non-exempt organizations (including Plaintiffs: Catholic Charities, St. Martin Center, Prince of Peace Center, and Erie Catholic) from enforcement of these provisions has been extended until December 31, 2013. Additional Stipulated Facts, ¶ 7, citing 77 Fed. Ref. 8725, 8727 (Feb. 15, 2012). Nonexempt Plaintiffs in both cases must comply with the contraceptive mandate on or before January 1, 2014, or potentially face substantial governmental penalties. 13–cv–303, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 164; Declaration of David Murphy ² (P–91), ¶ 9.

Plaintiffs allege that facilitating/initiating the process for providing health insurance coverage for contraceptive products, services, and counseling would cause immediate and irreparable injury to their fundamental rights and religious liberties, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.³ Doc. No. 4, 2.

This Memorandum Opinion will address both cases because the cases (although not consolidated) involve: similar facts (including the same religious tenets), the same counsel, the same causes of action advanced against the same Defendants, and the same legal tests apply to the Motions for Expedited Preliminary Injunction.

After consideration of Plaintiffs' Motions (13–cv–0303: Doc. No. 6; 13–cv–1459: Doc. No. 4), the Parties' submissions, the testimony presented during an evidentiary hearing, the hearing Exhibits, and an amici curiae brief,⁴ Plaintiffs' Motions for Expedited Preliminary Injunction will be GRANTED.

II. Findings of Fact⁵

A. Plaintiffs

The Pittsburgh Plaintiffs in Zubik v. Sebelius are: (1) the Most Reverend David A. Zubik, Bishop and Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh (“the Bishop” or “Bishop Zubik”); (2) the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, a Pennsylvania Charitable Trust (“the Diocese” or “the Diocese of Pittsburgh”); and (3) Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Inc. (“Catholic Charities”), an affiliate nonprofit corporation of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Doc. No. 1, 4.

The Pittsburgh Plaintiffs are interrelated because of their affiliation with the Catholic Church and their shared sincerely-held religious beliefs and mission. Bishop Zubik is the spiritual leader of the Diocese and is responsible for the spiritual, charitable, and educational arms of the Diocese. Catholic Charities is a nonprofit corporation affiliated with the Diocese and with a principal place of administration in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Diocese of Pittsburgh and Catholic Charities are organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 11–13.

The Plaintiffs in Persico v. Sebelius are: (1) the Most Reverend Lawrence T. Persico, Bishop and Trustee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie (“the Bishop” or “Bishop Persico”); (2) St. Martin Center, Inc. (“St. Martin Center”), a nonprofit corporation affiliated with Catholic Charities, with its principal place of business in Erie, Pennsylvania; (3) Prince of Peace Center, Inc. (“Prince of Peace Center”), a nonprofit corporation affiliated with Catholic Charities, with its principal place of business in Farrell, Pennsylvania; and (4) Erie Catholic Preparatory School (“Erie Catholic”), a nonprofit corporation, with its principal place of business in Erie, Pennsylvania. Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 11–14.

The Erie Plaintiffs are interrelated because of their affiliation with the Catholic Church and their shared sincerely-held religious beliefs and mission. St. Martin Center, Prince of Peace Center, Erie Catholic, and the Diocese of Erie are organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 11–14.

B. Immediate Harm Claimed by Plaintiffs

The Dioceses of Pittsburgh and Erie provide health insurance coverage to employees of their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related entities (such as Catholic Charities, St. Martin Center, Prince of Peace Center, and Erie Catholic) which are directed by the Dioceses to implement the spiritual, charitable, and educational mission of the Dioceses.

1. Immediate Harm as to the Dioceses

Based upon the credible testimony of Bishop Zubik and Bishop Persico, as Trustees for the Plaintiff nonprofit, religious affiliated/related organizations, the practical results of the application of the contraceptive mandate, via the “accommodation,” would be that the Dioceses would be required to either:

(a) provide their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related organizations with a separate insurance policy that covers contraceptive products, services, and counseling (which the Dioceses refuse to do, according to the trial testimony). Hearing Testimony, Bishop Zubik, pg. 43, lines 2–10; Hearing Testimony Bishop Persico, pg. 80, lines 1–8, pg. 82, lines 14–16, pg. 91, lines 7–9; or

(b) decline to continue offering health coverage to their nonprofit, religious affiliated/related organizations. This would force the nonprofit, religious affiliated/related organizations to enter into their own arrangements with a health insurance provider that would arrange no-cost coverage of contraceptive products, services, and counseling. 13–cv–303, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 118; Doc. No. 1, ¶ 159; Declaration of Susan Rauscher ⁶ (P–86), ⁷ ¶¶ 13–15; Declaration of David S. Stewart ⁸ (P–87), ¶ 18.

The contraceptive mandate would be unequally applied to Plaintiffs and would result in some schools,...