Reaching Souls International Inc et al v. Sebelius et al

Filing 95

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION and Declaratory Relief. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 3/15/2018. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
REACHING SOULS INTERNATIONAL, )
INC., et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALEX M. AZAR, II, Secretary of the
)
United States Department of Health
)
and Human Services, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-13-1092-D

ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction and Declaratory
Relief [Doc. No. 91], and Defendants’ response thereto, the Court finds that the Motion
should be granted, as set forth herein.
Plaintiffs Reaching Souls International, Inc. and Truett-McConnell College, Inc. are
nonprofit religious organizations that provide employee health benefits through a group
plan sponsored by Plaintiff GuideStone Financial Resources of the Southern Baptist
Convention (“GuideStone”).

The GuideStone Plan is a “church plan” as defined by

29 U.S.C. § 1002(33), and is available to organizations controlled by or associated with the
Southern Baptist Convention, which share sincere religious views regarding abortion and
contraception and rely on GuideStone to provide insurance coverage consistent with those
views.

By the Complaint, a prior motion for a preliminary injunction, and the instant

Motion, Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 from federal regulations

implementing the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) 1 that require compliance with ACA’s
mandate to include contraceptive services in group health plan coverage as a preventive
care service for women, and provide a means of compliance for nonexempt organizations
that have religious objections to some contraceptive methods.

See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13.

This mechanism, known as the accommodation, was codified in 26 C.F.R. § 54.98152713A, 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A, and 45 C.F.R. § 147.131. 2

Defendants are federal

agencies and officials responsible for implementing these regulations and other recently
proposed amendments. 3
On December 20, 2013, the Court granted preliminary injunctive relief and enjoined
the enforcement of the accommodation and the contraceptive mandate as a violation of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”), under Hobby
Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2103), aff’d sub nom., Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).

1

See Mem. Decision & Order [Doc.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119

(2010).
2

These regulations have been recently reserved and amended by interim final rules. See
82 Fed. Reg. 47792, 47838 (Oct. 13, 2017). But federal courts have enjoined enforcement of the
interim rules so their effectiveness remains in doubt.
3

By operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the current defendants are: Alex Azar, Secretary
of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of
Health and Human Services; R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of the United States Department of
Labor; United States Department of Labor; Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury; and United States Department of the Treasury.

2

No. 67] (available at 2013 WL 6804259). 4

At Plaintiffs’ request, and without objection

by Defendants, the injunction was made broad enough to protect a putative class of
similarly situated employers, as defined in the Complaint.

See id. at 16; Compl. [Doc.

No. 1], ¶ 18. Defendants appealed, and this case was stayed by agreement of the parties.
See 3/26/14 Order [Doc. No. 79].

After an appellate ruling in consolidated appeals, Little

Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, 794 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2015), a grant of certiorari by the
Supreme Court that resulted in an order vacating the decision and remanding the case for
further proceedings, Zubick v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016), and a change of
administrations, the Tenth Circuit on October 23, 2017, granted Defendants’ motion for
voluntarily dismissal of the appeal.

The case is once again pending in this Court. 5

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s current Motion in light of the existing case record,
the Court finds that a permanent injunction under Rule 65(d) and declaratory relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2201 are warranted, and states the following findings and conclusions:
1)

Plaintiffs have demonstrated, and Defendants concede, that the promulgation

and enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against Plaintiffs, either through the
accommodation or other regulatory means that require Plaintiffs to facilitate the provision

4

Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief based on constitutional claims that the Court
declined to reach. See id. at 16 n.9; see also 3/10/14 Order [Doc. No. 77]. In addition, the
Complaint asserts a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. See Compl.,
¶ 333. These claims have not been resolved, and currently remain pending.
5

Given the marked change in circumstances, one might question what remains to be
accomplished in this action. Plaintiffs’ counsel assures the Court that an actual controversy still
exists even though Defendants offer little resistance, and the Court accepts the representations of
counsel, which Defendants do not dispute.

3

of coverage for contraceptive services to which they hold sincere religious objections,
violated and would violate RFRA.
2)

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct

unless Defendants are enjoined from further interfering with Plaintiffs’ practice of their
religious beliefs.
3)

The threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs any injury to Defendants resulting

from this injunction.
4)

The public interest in the vindication of religious freedom favors the entry of

an injunction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent Injunction
and Declaratory Relief [Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court issues the following PERMANENT
INJUNCTION:
Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, and all successors in office are
enjoined and restrained from any effort to apply or enforce the substantive requirements of
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) and any implementing regulations as those requirements relate
to the provision of contraceptive drugs, devices, or procedures and related education and
counseling to which Plaintiffs have sincerely-held religious objections, and are enjoined
and restrained from pursuing, charging, or assessing penalties, fines, assessments, or other
enforcement actions for noncompliance related thereto, including those in 26 U.S.C.
§§ 4980D and 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d, and including, but not limited to,

4

penalties for failure to offer or facilitate access to religiously-objectionable contraceptive
drugs, devices, or procedures, and related education and counseling, against Reaching
Souls International, Inc., Truett-McConnell College, Inc., GuideStone Financial Resources
of the Southern Baptist Convention, all current and future participating employers in the
GuideStone Plan, and any-third party administrators acting on behalf of these entities with
respect to the GuideStone Plan. Defendants remain free to enforce 26 U.S.C. § 4980H
for any purpose other than to require Plaintiffs, other employers participating in the
GuideStone Plan, and third-party administrators acting on their behalf, to provide or
facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage, or to punish them for failing to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED this

15th

day of March, 2018.

5