Divided 7th Circuit Rules for Temporary Ban against Contraceptive Mandate

Most law firms avoid posting jobs on Indeed or LinkedIn due to high costs. Instead, they publish them on their own websites, bar association pages, and niche legal boards. LawCrossing finds these hidden jobs, giving you access to exclusive opportunities. Sign up now!

published December 31, 2012

By Author - LawCrossing

12/31/12

Divided 7th Circuit Rules for Temporary Ban against Contraceptive Mandate
On Friday, a divided federal appeals court passed a temporary injunction barring the US government from requiring an Illinois company, owned by Christian owners Cyril and Jane Korte, from immediately obtaining insurance coverage for contraceptives. The 2-1 order from a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is the second temporary injunction upon the contraceptives mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed by a federal appeals court.

The decision comes almost back-to-back after Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor denying a similar injunction to the Hobby Lobby chain stores. Just two days prior to the 7th Circuit order, Sotomayor had denied similar reprieve to the Oklahoma City billionaire, David Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, on the same grounds.

Currently more than 40 lawsuits are pending in different courts of the country challenging enforcement and constitutionality of the contraceptives mandate.

Cyril and Jane Korte, who practice the Roman Catholic faith, are owners of the construction firm Korte & Luitjohan Contractors. They sought to substitute their current health insurance plan for 20 non-unionized workers with a plan that did not include coverage for contraception.

United States
However, their desire to change the plan conflicted with the new healthcare law, and the Kortes challenged on the grounds that the contraceptives mandate violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and their rights granted under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the same grounds raised by Hobby Lobby before the 10th Circuit.

While issuing the injunction, the 7th Circuit observed that the appellants had established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and that the government was yet to justify the “substantial burden” imposed by the law upon the appellants in the exercise of their religious beliefs. In contrast to Sotomayor's ruling on Wednesday, the 7th Circuit found that the appellants had established irreparable harm, because without an injunction to protect themselves, their choices were limited to only two options – either sacrifice their religious liberties, or face financial penalties.

In dissent against the majority, Judge Ilana Rovner said that the appellants were “multiple steps” removed from the contraceptive services, because it was their company, and not they, who would be paying for the coverage, and because the decision would be between a worker, her doctor, and the insurer that would determine the services and their funding.

The case is Korte et al v. Sebelius, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-3841.
Gain an advantage in your legal job search. LawCrossing uncovers hidden positions that firms post on their own websites and industry-specific job boards—jobs that never appear on Indeed or LinkedIn. Don't miss out. Sign up now!

( 2 votes, average: 4.6 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related