Ave Maria University v. Sebelius et al

Filing 72

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge John Antoon II on 3/29/2013. (BLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

AVE MARIA UNIVERSITY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:12-cv-88-Ftm-99SPC

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, HILDA
SOLIS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, TIMOTHY
GEITHNER, and UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Ave Maria University has filed this lawsuit to challenge regulations promulgated
under the Affordable Care Act, see 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), that require group
health plans and health insurance issuers, unless grandfathered or otherwise exempt,
to cover all FDA-approved contraception and sterilization methods. Ave Maria argues
that it cannot comply with this contraceptive-coverage mandate without violating its
religious beliefs and that the mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendants have
moved to dismiss Ave Maria’s Complaint on the basis that Ave Maria lacks standing and
that its claims are not ripe for adjudication.1 Because Ave Maria’s claims are not ripe,
they will be dismissed without prejudice.
1

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21), Ave
Maria’s Response (Doc. 24), and Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 27). The parties have also
filed numerous notices of supplemental authority.

Ave Maria’s lawsuit is one of many cases that have been filed throughout the
country in which a religiously affiliated institution has challenged the contraceptive
coverage requirement in the Affordable Care Act’s preventative services regulations.
Courts in many of these cases have issued decisions that describe in detail the
contraceptive-coverage mandate’s statutory and regulatory background.

See, e.g.,

Belmont Abbey Coll. v. Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2012).
The crux of Defendants’ ripeness argument is that they are in the process of
amending the challenged regulations to accommodate religious concerns and that they
have represented that they will never enforce the regulations in their current form
against Ave Maria or any similarly situated entity. Ave Maria concedes that it is eligible
for a temporary enforcement safe harbor, (see Doc. 24 at 8-9), pursuant to which
Defendants will not bring any enforcement action against it for failing to provide
contraceptive coverage until at least January 1, 2014. Additionally, Defendants have
initiated a rulemaking to amend the regulations and have recently issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking that would amend the contraceptive coverage requirement as it
applies to Ave Maria. See 78 Fed. Reg. 8456, 8459 (Feb. 6, 2013). Defendants have
also represented to this Court that “the regulations are certain to change and that the
government will never enforce them in their current form against” Ave Maria or any
similarly situated entities. (Doc. 69 at 3-5).
This Court therefore joins the overwhelming majority of courts to have addressed
similar challenges by similarly situated plaintiffs in concluding that Ave Maria’s claims
are not ripe for adjudication. See, e.g., Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, No. 12-5273, 2012
WL 6652505 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 18, 2012); Most Reverend Wenski v. Sebelius, No. 12-cv-

2

23820 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2013) (attached to Doc. 71); Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas
v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01589-B, 2013 WL 687080 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26,
2013); Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Sebelius, No. 4:12-cv-924-JAR, 2013 WL 328926
(E.D. Mo. Jan. 29, 2013); Roman Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. Sebelius, No. 12-cv0815 (ABJ), 2013 WL 285599 (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2013); Colo. Christian Univ. v. Sebelius,
No. 11-cv-03350-CMA-BNB, 2013 WL 93188 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2013); Univ. of Notre
Dame v. Sebelius, No. 3:12-cv-00523, 2012 WL 6756332 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012);
Catholic Diocese of Biloxi v. Sebelius, No. 1:12-cv-00158, 2012 WL 6831407 (S.D.
Miss. Dec. 20, 2012); Nebraska v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No.
4:12CV3035, 2012 WL 2913402 (D. Neb. July 17, 2012); But see Roman Catholic
Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, No. 4:12-cv-00314-Y-TRM (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013)
(attached to Doc. 69); Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. v. Sebelius, No. 12 Civ.
2542(BMC), 2012 WL 6042864 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2012).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21) is GRANTED, and Ave
Maria’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to
close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 29, 2013.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

3