Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 114

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PRIESTS FOR LIFE, Plaintiff,
v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HILDA SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Hon. Frederic Block

Plaintiff Priests for Life, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this First Amended Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof alleges the following upon information and belief:
INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action in which Plaintiff Priests for Life is seeking to protect and defend its fundamental rights to religious liberty and freedom of speech. Priests for Life is challenging certain implementing regulations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”) which require it, as an employer, to provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and
1

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 115
counseling under penalty of federal law. This government mandate violates Priests for Life’s rights to the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech, it violates the Establishment Clause, and it deprives Priests for Life of the equal protection of the law in violation of the United States Constitution. The mandate also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
2. Priests for Life seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the challenged regulations and a declaration that these regulations violate federal constitutional and statutory law. The implementing regulations under the Affordable Care Act (i.e., the contraceptive services mandate), which require employers, including Priests for Life, to provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients and related education and counseling are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in that they violate Priests for Life’s rights to the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they deprive Priests for Life of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, they violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
3. The Affordable Care Act’s contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient mandate violates the rights of Priests for Life as a Catholic organization. Indeed, the mandate violates the religious freedom of all people of faith, and even those of no faith, who have a conscientious objection to contraception, sterilization, or abortion. Priests for Life brings this action to vindicate not only its own rights and to remedy the harms it presently suffers and will continue to suffer absent the requested relief, but to ultimately protect the rights of all Americans who care about religious freedom, as well as to protect innocent human life.
2

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 116
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This action in which the United States is a defendant arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346. 5. Priests for Life’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by 28 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because this is the judicial district in which Priests for Life is located.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Priests for Life is a non-profit corporation that is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It has its principal place of business in the County of Richmond, New York. And it is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(c)(3) organization. 8. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter “HHS”). In this capacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of HHS. Defendant Sebelius is sued in her official capacity only. 9. Defendant HHS is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate, which is the subject of this lawsuit. 10. Defendant Hilda Solis is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. In this capacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of the Department of Labor. Defendant Solis is sued in her official capacity only.
3

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 117
11. Defendant Department of Labor is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate, which is the subject of this lawsuit.
12. Defendant Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury. In this capacity, he has responsibility for the operation and management of the Department of the Treasury. Defendant Geithner is sued in his official capacity only.
13. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the contraceptive services mandate, which is the subject of this lawsuit.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Affordable Care Act
14. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), amended by Healthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (hereinafter “Affordable Care Act” or “Act”).
15. Among many other things, the Affordable Care Act requires certain employers to provide federal government-approved health insurance or pay a substantial per-employee fine. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H.
The Affordable Care Act — Not a General Law of Neutral Applicability 16. To date, HHS has granted over 1,000 individualized waiver requests from employers and to insurance plans excusing their compliance with the Affordable Care Act. 17. Certain provisions of the Act do not apply to members of certain religious groups. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) (individual mandate does not apply to members
4

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 118
of a “recognized religious sect or division” that conscientiously objects to acceptance of public or private insurance funds); § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(ii) (individual mandate does not apply to members of “health care sharing ministry” that meets certain criteria). None of these exceptions apply to Priests for Life.
18. The Affordable Care Act’s preventive care requirements (described below) do not apply to employers who provide so-called “grandfathered” health care plans. The Affordable Care Act’s default position is that an existing health care plan is not a grandfathered plan.
19. Priests for Life’s health care plan is not a grandfathered plan under the Affordable Care Act for multiple reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) the health care plan does not include the required “disclosure of grandfather status” statement; (2) Priests for Life does not take the position that its health care plan is a grandfathered plan and thus does not maintain the records necessary to verify, explain, or clarify its status as a grandfathered plan nor will it make such records available for examination upon request; and (3) the health care plan has an increase in a percentage cost-sharing requirement measured from March 23, 2010. See 42 U.S.C. § 18011(a)(2); 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-1251T; 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-1251; 45 C.F.R. § 147.140.
20. The Affordable Care Act is not generally applicable because it does not apply equally to all individuals and employers; because the Act provides for numerous exemptions from its provisions, including exemptions for some religious groups and for some religious beliefs, but not for others, including Priests for Life and its religious beliefs; and because HHS grants individualized waiver requests excusing some employers from complying with the provisions of the Act.
5

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 119
21. The Affordable Care is not neutral because some groups, both secular and religious, enjoy exemptions from certain provisions of the Act, which others do not; because some groups, both secular and religious, have received waivers from complying with the provisions of the Act, while others have not. Priests for Life is not eligible for any exemptions, and it is certainly not eligible for an exemption from the challenged mandate. In fact, the mandate specifically targets for discriminatory treatment those religious groups such as Priests for Life that oppose providing coverage for, or access to, “contraceptive services” on the basis of their religious views.
22. The Affordable Care Act favors certain religious organizations, beliefs, and practices, and it disfavors those religious organizations, such as Priests for Life, that oppose contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients on religious grounds. Thus, the Affordable Care Act discriminates amongst similarly situated religious organizations on the basis of religious beliefs and practices.
The Affordable Care Act — Development of the Preventive Services Mandate 23. Among other things, one provision of the Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurers “provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventative care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). 24. On July 19, 2010, HHS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury, published interim final regulations “implementing the rules for group health plans and health insurance coverage in the group and individual markets under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act regarding preventive health services.” 75 Fed. Reg.
6

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 120
41726 (2010). Among other things, the interim final regulations required health insurers to cover preventive care for women “as provided for in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 75 Fed. Reg. 41759 (2010).
25. HHS accepted public comments to the 2010 interim final regulations until September 17, 2010. Upon information and belief, a large number of groups filed comments, warning of the potential conscience implications of requiring religious individuals and groups to pay for certain kinds of services, including contraception, sterilization, and abortion.
26. HHS commissioned a study by a private health policy organization, the Institute of Medicine (hereinafter “IOM”), “to review what preventive services are necessary for women’s health and well-being and should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines for preventive services for women.” (See http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
27. In conducting its study, IOM invited various pro-elective abortion groups and individuals to make presentations on the preventive care that should be provided by all health insurers, including the following: the Guttmacher Institute, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Women’s Law Center, the National Women’s Health Network, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, John Santelli, and Sara Rosenbaum. (See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13181&page=217).
28. No religious groups or other groups that oppose government-mandated coverage of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling were among the invited presenters. (See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13181&page=217).
29. On July 19, 2011, IOM published a report of its study regarding preventive care for women. Among other things, IOM recommended that preventive services include “[a]ll
7

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 121
Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods [and] sterilization procedures.” (See Institute of Medicine, Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011)).
30. Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods include, among other drugs, devices and procedures, birth control pills, prescription contraceptive devices, Plan B (also known as the “morning after pill”), and ulipristal (also known as “ella” or the “week after pill”).
31. Plan B and ella can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus and can cause the death of an embryo. The use of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus or to cause the death of an embryo each constitute an “abortion.” Consequently, Plan B and ella are abortifacients.
32. On August 1, 2011, HHS’s Health Resources and Services Administration (hereinafter “HRSA”) announced that it was supporting “the IOM’s recommendations on preventive services that address health needs specific to women and fill gaps in existing guidelines.” HRSA entitled the recommendations, “Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines.” Among other things, HRSA’s Guidelines include “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” (See http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
The Affordable Care Act — Adoption of the Contraceptive Services Mandate 33. On August 3, 2011, HHS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury, published interim final regulations which, among other things, mandate that all health insurers “provide benefits for and prohibit the imposition of cost-sharing: . . . . With respect to women, preventive care and screening provided for in comprehensive
8

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 122
guidelines supported by HRSA . . . which will be commonly known as HRSA’s Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines.” 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (2011); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130.
34. Defendant Departments “determined that an additional opportunity for public comment would be impractical and contrary to the public interest” and promulgated the final regulation without waiting for public comment.
35. The August 3, 2011, interim final regulations noted that “several commenters [to the July 19, 2010 interim final regulations] asserted that requiring group health plans sponsored by religious employers to cover contraceptive services that their faith deems contrary to its religious tenets would impinge upon their religious freedom.” Accordingly, “the Departments seek to provide for a religious accommodation that respects the unique relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministerial positions. . . [T]he Departments are amending the interim final rules to provide HRSA additional discretion to exempt certain religious employees from the Guidelines where contraceptive services are concerned.” (emphasis added).
36. For purposes of this discretionary exemption, a “religious employer is one that: (1) has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii).” 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (2011); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130.
37. Priests for Life does not qualify as a “religious employer” for purposes of the discretionary exemption.
38. Although HHS accepted public comments to the August 3, 2011 interim final regulations until September 30, 2011, it went into effect immediately.
9

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 123
39. Heath insurers are required to begin providing the coverage mandated by HRSA’s Women’s Preventive Care Guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August 1, 2012.
40. Thus, by the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, the federal government purported to effect a rule forcing private health plans nationwide to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated “preventive services” prevent disease, but pregnancy is not a disease. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws.
41. The contraceptive services component of the preventive services mandate imposes a substantial burden of unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those who consider such “services” immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to provide, sponsor, and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage.
42. Upon information and belief, HHS received tens of thousands of comments objecting to the contraceptive services mandate.
43. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops called for a rescission of the contraceptive services mandate, and, in the event HHS insisted on keeping the mandate, urged HHS to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders—not just the extremely small subset of “religious employers” that HHS proposed to exempt initially.
44. On January 20, 2012, Defendant Sebelius announced that: “Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.” She further announced that: “We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of
10

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 124
contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.” (See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html).
45. Notwithstanding HHS’s stated intention to provide a one-year temporary enforcement safe harbor, the challenged mandate is currently federal law. There is no condition precedent necessary, nor is there any subsequent regulation required to make it so. In fact, when asked whether the temporary enforcement safe harbor was giving the Obama administration time to reconsider its position on the contraceptive services mandate or employers a year to comply, a senior administration official stated, without equivocation: “It gives them [i.e., employers] a year to comply.”
46. On February 10, 2012, President Obama announced that his Administration intends to propose and finalize a new regulation that “will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. . . . Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2012/02/10/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-services-and-religious-institutions). However, this so-called “compromise,” which is currently not the law and which was rejected by the Catholic Bishops because it fails to protect religious freedom and the right to conscience, is a distinction without a difference, and it does not remedy the constitutional and statutory defects of the challenged mandate.
47. While Defendant Sebelius claimed that women may pay up to $600 per year for contraceptive services, she asserted that insurers could provide those services to covered employees at no cost because “on balance, preventive services around family planning, avoiding
11

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 125
what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer.” (See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/Jan-june12/contraception_02-10.html).
48. Insurance companies do not donate products and services to covered employees. Drug makers will still charge insurers for birth control pills, IUD’s, and other contraceptive devices. Doctors will still bill insurers for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benefits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. Insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find equilibrium. Thus, Priests for Life will still pay for contraceptive services, including abortifacients, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation—its health insurance provider. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577215150068215494.html).
49. There is no logical or moral distinction between the extant contraceptive services mandate, with its limited employer exemption, and the proposed “revised” regulation, which was announced on February 10, 2012. Employers who offer health insurance do not pay for individual benefits and products as they are provided. Rather, they pay a premium for a policy that gives their employees access to covered benefits and products when they need them. Under the proposed “revised” regulation, all non-exempted health plans must include contraceptive services among their covered benefits. Thus, religious employers will still be forced to provide their employees with access to a product that violates their religious convictions (i.e., contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients).
50. Defendants have rejected considering a “broader exemption” from the challenged mandate because they believe that such an exemption “would lead to more employees having to pay out of pocket for contraceptive services, thus making it less likely that they would use contraceptives, which would undermine the benefits [of requiring the coverage].” According to
12

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 126
Defendants, “Employees that do not primarily employ employees who share the religious tenets of the organization are more likely to employ individuals who have no religious objection to the use of contraceptive services and therefore are more likely to use contraceptives. Including these employers within the scope of the exemption would subject their employees to the religious views of the employer, limiting access to contraceptives, thereby inhibiting the use of contraceptive services and the benefits of preventive care.” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8728 (Feb. 15, 2012) (emphasis added). Thus, the ultimate goal of Defendants is to increase the “use of contraceptive services” by compelling access to these services and to ensure that employees, including employees of religious organizations such as Priests for Life, are not “subject” to the employer’s religious beliefs regarding such “contraceptive services.”
51. Consequently, despite beginning the process of amending the regulations by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register, see 77 Fed. Reg. 16501 (Mar. 21, 2012), Defendants have made it clear that they do not intend to provide a “broader exemption” that would in any way “inhibit[] the use of contraceptive services” by employees or subject . . . employees to the religious views of the employer.” In short, Defendants do not intend to extend the exemption from the mandate to organizations such as Priests for Life in a manner that would protect and respect Priests for Life’s religious beliefs and convictions.
52. Thus, the contraceptive services mandate of the Affordable Care Act favors certain religious organizations, beliefs, and practices, and it disfavors those religious organizations, such as Priests for Life, that oppose contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients on religious grounds. The contraceptive services mandate of the Affordable Care Act
13

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 127
discriminates amongst similarly situated religious organizations on the basis of religious beliefs and practices.
53. Through the contraceptive services mandate and its associated regulations, Defendants are conveying the message that those religious organizations that accept and promote the use of contraceptive services are favored members of the political community, while those religious organizations that oppose contraceptive services, such as Priests for Life, are disfavored members of the political community.
Priests for Life — Mission 54. Priests for Life was founded in 1991 to do one of the most important tasks in the Church today: to help priests around the world spread the Gospel of Life. The mission of Priests for Life is to unite and encourage all clergy to give special emphasis to the life issues in their ministry. It also seeks to help them take a more vocal and active role in the pro-life movement, with predominant emphasis on the issues of abortion and euthanasia. Priests for Life exists in order to show the clergy how to fight the culture of death. 55. Priests for Life’s Mission Statement provides: “As a Private Association of the Faithful, recognized and approved under the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, and working in harmony with the goals of the Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee and the local diocesan respect life offices, Priests for Life seeks to:
1. unite, encourage, and provide ongoing training to priests and deacons who give a special emphasis to the ‘life issues’, especially abortion and euthanasia, in their ministries;
2. instill a sense of urgency in all clergy to teach about these issues and to mobilize their people to help stop abortion and euthanasia;
14

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 128
3. assist clergy and laity to work together productively for the cause of life; 4. provide ongoing training and motivation to the entire pro-life movement.” 56. With the cooperation of bishops and their respect life offices, Priests for Life provides a bi-monthly newsletter to priests and deacons. This informative newsletter is also available to the general public. Priests for Life offers pro-life seminars and retreats to both clergy and laity of all denominations. With the permission of their respective ordinaries, the National Director of Priests for Life and his associates travel the country full time to meet with priests and pro-life groups. Priests for Life offers a wide range of audios, videos, and brochures, and regularly uses the media of television, radio, and the printed press to spread the message of life to all people of faith and to those of no faith. 57. Priests for Life also represents a family of ministries that reach and enrich every aspect of the pro-life movement, for clergy and laity alike, in a wide variety of activities, including direct ministries to priests, deacons, and seminarians; youth outreach; healing ministries; broadcasting; prayer campaigns; education regarding public policy; and facilitating relationships among pro-life organizations and leaders. 58. In short, Priests for Life provides a wide range of services to both Catholics and non-Catholics as part of its pro-life ministry. Priests for Life — Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Regarding
Contraceptive Practices and Abortion 59. A deep devotion to the Catholic faith is central to the mission of Priests for Life. 60. Priests for Life holds and actively professes religious beliefs that include traditional Christian teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality. In particular, in accordance with Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, Priests for Life believes that human sexuality has two primary purposes: to “most closely unit[e] husband and wife” and “for
15

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 129
the generation of new lives.” Priests for Life believes and actively professes the Catholic Church teaching that “[t]o use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His Will.” Therefore, Priests for Life believes and teaches that “any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation, whether as an end or as a means”— including contraception and sterilization—is a grave sin.
61. Priests for Life also holds and actively professes religious beliefs that include traditional Christian teaching on the sanctity of life. It believes and teaches that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore all human life is sacred and precious from the moment of conception. Consequently, Priests for Life believes and teaches that abortion ends a human life and is a grave sin.
62. Further, Priests for Life subscribes to authoritative Catholic teaching about the proper nature and aims of health care and medical treatment. For example, Priests for Life believes, in accordance with Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, that “‘[c]ausing death’ can never be considered a form of medical treatment,” but rather “runs completely counter to the health-care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life.”
63. Based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, and its own sincerely held beliefs, Priests for Life does not believe that contraception, sterilization, or abortion are properly understood to constitute medicine, health care, or a means of providing for the well-being of persons. Indeed, Priests for Life believes these procedures involve gravely immoral practices.
16

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 130
Priests for Life — Employee Health Insurance 64. As part of its commitment to Catholic social teaching, Priests for Life promotes the health and well-being of its employees. In furtherance of this commitment, Priests for Life provides health insurance for its employees. 65. Priests for Life cannot provide health insurance covering artificial contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its sincerely held religious beliefs. 66. Priests for Life cannot provide health insurance that grants access to and makes available contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its sincerely held religious beliefs. 67. Priests for Life cannot provide information or guidance to its employees about other locations at which they can access artificial contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its sincerely held religious beliefs. 68. Priests for Life is funded solely through tax-deductible donations. Donors who give to Priests for Life do so with an understanding of Priest for Life’s mission and with the assurance that Priests for Life will continue to adhere to, disseminate, and report reliable Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and human sexuality. 69. Priests for Life cannot use donated funds for purposes known to be morally repugnant to its donors and in ways that would violate the implicit trust of the purpose of their donations. 70. Priests for Life’s next plan year will commence in January 2013.
17

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 131
Priests for Life — Harm Caused by the Imposition of the Challenged Mandate 71. Defendants claim that they are seeking “to develop alternative ways of providing contraceptive coverage” that would require “contraceptive coverage directly to the employer’s plan participants (and their beneficiaries) who desire it.” Defendants contend that there would “be no charge for the contraceptive coverage.” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8728 (Feb. 15, 2012). However, even under this proposed, but yet not the law, regulation, Priests for Life will still be purchasing a health care plan that provides “contraceptive coverage directly to [its] plan participants (and their beneficiaries),” which is unacceptable to Priests for Life. 72. Indeed, Priests for Life will still be paying for a health care plan that provides these immoral services “directly to” its employees in violation of Priests for Life’s strongly held religious beliefs. And as Defendants’ proposed regulations make plain, the government is inserting itself into Priests for Life’s business practices so that, according to the government, Priests for Life’s employees would not be “subject” to Priests for Life’s “religious views.” Consequently, the federal government, through the mandate and its “proposed” regulations, are directly undermining and interfering with Priests for Life’s religious beliefs and practices. 73. By providing its employees with a health care plan in general, the government mandate still forces Priests for Life to provide the mechanism by which contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are provided to its employees, which is unacceptable to Priests for Life because it violates Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 74. Because the enforcement penalties might apply in the future does not alter the fact that Priests for Life must now consider, plan for, and take actions to protect its religious freedoms from the proscriptions of the mandate and the proposed “compromise” mandate.
18

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 132
75. Because of the government mandate, whether in its current or proposed form, Priests for Life must now make business decisions that will affect its ability to continue the services it provides. As a non-profit organization, Priests for Life funds its operations almost entirely through tax-deductible donations, including planned giving. Priests for Life must make business decisions now based on what it expects to receive in donations in the future. This requires Priests for Life to look several years ahead to determine what its budget will be and thus what services it will be capable of providing. Priests for Life’s donors will not support an organization that provides its employees with access to contraception, sterilization, or abortifacients—practices that run counter to Priests for Life’s mission and goals—the very basis for the donations in the first instance. Consequently, Priests for Life must now consider limiting the services it provides so as to save funding for the future if it were to comply with the mandate.
76. Indeed, the current mandate with its limited employer exemption and the proposed “compromise” will likely force Priests for Life out of the market for health care services and thus adversely affect it as an organization beyond any fines it may have to pay. Many of Priests for Life’s valued employees, without whom Priests for Life could not provide its much needed services, will be forced to leave Priests for Life and seek other employment that provides health care benefits.
77. Priests for Life’s decisions to forego certain spending today, so they will have the funds to cover their costs in the future are injuries fairly traceable to the challenged mandate. There is nothing improbable about the contention that the contraceptive services mandate is causing Priests for Life to feel economic and moral pressure today as a result of the government imposing substantial burdens on the religious beliefs and practices of Priests for Life.
19

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 133
78. In sum, Priests for Life, a Catholic organization, is morally prohibited based on its sincerely held religious convictions from cooperating with evil. Priests for Life objects to being forced by the government to purchase a health care plan that provides its employees with access to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients, all of which are prohibited by its religious convictions. This is true whether the immoral services are paid for directly, indirectly, or even not at all by Priests for Life. Contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients are immoral regardless of their cost. And Priests for Life objects to the government forcing it into a moral dilemma with regard to its relationship with its employees and its very survival as an effective, pro-life organization. In short, the harm caused to Priests for Life by the imposition of a government mandate to provide “contraceptive services” has come to pass. Priests for Life need not wait for the imposition of a penalty to seek relief from this Court.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Free Exercise of Religion — Violation of the First Amendment) 79. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 80. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates Priests for Life’s right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 81. A government mandate, such as the proposed “compromise” regulation, that requires Priests for Life to provide access to contraception, sterilization, or abortion, and related education and counseling violates Priests for Life’s right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
20

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 134
82. Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit it from providing insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling. Priests for Life’s compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise.
83. Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit it from providing access to contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling. Priests for Life’s compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise
84. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Priests for Life provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling substantially burdens Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
85. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Priests for Life provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling chills Priests for Life’s religious exercise.
86. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling creates government-imposed coercive pressure on Priests for Life to change or violate its sincerely held religious beliefs.
87. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling exposes Priests for Life to significant competitive disadvantage, in that it will no longer be able to offer its employees health insurance.
21

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 135
88. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling does not further any compelling governmental interest.
89. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible governmental interest.
90. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is a restriction on the free exercise of religion which is not narrowly tailored to advance any permissible governmental interest.
91. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling does not accommodate Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
92. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is not a general law of neutral applicability.
93. Notwithstanding its receipt of multiple objections to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling on the basis that it would violate sincerely held religious beliefs, Defendants designed that requirement and its
22

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 136
“religious employer” exemption in a way that makes it impossible for Priests for Life to comply with its religious beliefs.
94. By design, the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is imposed on some religious organizations, but not others, resulting in discrimination among religions.
95. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is official action that targets religious conduct and beliefs for distinctive and discriminatory adverse treatment.
96. Defendants promulgated the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling to suppress Priests for Life’s and others’ right to free exercise of religion.
97. The Affordable Care Act’s violation of Priests for Life’s right to free exercise of religion has caused, and will continue to cause, Priests for Life to suffer undue hardship and irreparable injury.
98. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Priests for Life has suffered immediate irreparable harm, including the loss of its constitutional rights, entitling Priests for Life to declaratory and injunctive relief.
23

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 137
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) 100. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 101. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. 102. Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit it from providing insurance coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling. Priests for Life’s compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise. 103. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Priests for Life provide health insurance that covers, or provides access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling substantially burdens Priests for Life’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 104. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling does not further any compelling governmental interest. 105. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible governmental interest.
24

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 138
106. The Affordable Care Act’s violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has caused, and will continue to cause, Priests for Life to suffer undue hardship and irreparable injury.
107. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Priests for Life has suffered immediate irreparable harm, entitling Priests for Life to declaratory and injunctive relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Freedom of Speech — Violation of the First Amendment) 109. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 110. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates Priests for Life’s right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 111. The HRSA Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines mandate that non-exempt employer-sponsored health plans must cover “preventive services,” which include “Contraceptive methods and counseling: All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods; sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
25

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 139
112. The Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive services mandate compels Priests for Life to subsidize education and counseling regarding contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and abortifacient in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.
113. The Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive services mandate compels Priests for Life to provide education and counseling regarding contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and abortifacients in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs.
114. The Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive services mandate compels Priests for Life to engage in speech that violates its sincerely held religious beliefs.
115. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest.
116. Defendants promulgated the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling to suppress Priests for Life’s and others’ right to free speech.
117. The Affordable Care Act’s violation of Priests for Life’s right to free speech has caused, and will continue to cause, Priests for Life to suffer undue hardship and irreparable injury.
118. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
119. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Priests for Life has suffered immediate irreparable harm,
26

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 140
including the loss of its constitutional rights, entitling Priests for Life to declaratory and injunctive relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Establishment Clause — Violation of the First Amendment) 120. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 121. By favoring some religious beliefs and practices, but disfavoring those sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of Priests for Life, Defendants have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 122. The challenged mandate lacks a secular purpose, has the primary effect of inhibiting religion, and creates excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 123. Defendants’ mandate is anti-Catholic, and it conveys an impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward the Catholic Church and Catholic religious beliefs and practices. As a result, Defendants’ contraceptive services mandate sends a clear message to Priests for Life and others who are adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community and an accompanying message that those who oppose the Catholic Church and Catholic religious beliefs and practices by accepting and promoting contraceptive services, are insiders, favored members of the political community, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Priests for Life has suffered immediate irreparable harm,
27

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #: 141
including the loss of its constitutional rights, entitling Priests for Life to declaratory and injunctive relief.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Equal Protection — Violation of the Fifth Amendment) 125. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 126. By exempting some religious organizations from the proscriptions of the Affordable Care Act and its contraceptive services mandate on the basis of religious beliefs and practices, but forcing Priests for Life to provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling in violation of its sincerely held religious convictions, Defendants have deprived Priests for Life of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 127. By favoring some religious beliefs and practices, but disfavoring those sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of Priests for Life, Defendants have deprived Priests for Life of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 128. The contraceptive services mandate of the Affordable Care Act discriminates amongst similarly situated religious organizations on the basis of religious beliefs and practices in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
28

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #: 142
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Fifth Amendment, Priests for Life has suffered immediate irreparable harm, including the loss of its constitutional rights, entitling Priests for Life to declaratory and injunctive relief.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act) 130. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 131. Because the Affordable Care Act itself does not specify a standard for judicial review, it is subject to review under the default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). At issue in this lawsuit is whether adoption of the Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling was “without observance of procedure required by law” and/or “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 132. The Administrative Procedure Act requires general notice of a proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment before promulgation of a rulemaking, unless the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq. 133. Defendant Departments purported to find good cause to forego public comment on the August 3, 2011, interim final regulations on the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandate on the basis that the public had the opportunity to comment on the previous interim final rule issued on July 19, 2010. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (2011).
29

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #: 143
134. The July 19, 2010, interim final rule, however, did not include HRSA’s Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines, which mandated the coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling. Accordingly, the public was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the contraceptive services mandate in the preventive services provision of the Affordable Care Act.
135. Because Defendant Departments took agency action “not in observance of procedure required by law,” Priests for Life is entitled to relief under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
136. Similarly, Defendant Departments’ decision to adopt the August 3, 2011, interim final regulations was made without considering the public’s comments on the specific preventive procedures mandated therein, including coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling. Therefore, its action was “arbitrary, capricious, [and] an abuse of discretion.” Priests for Life is therefore also entitled to relief under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
137. Section 1303(b)(1)(A) of the Affordable Care Act states that “nothing in this title”—(i.e., Title I of the Act, which includes the provision dealing with “preventive services”)—“shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of [abortion] services . . . as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year.”
138. Further, the Weldon Amendment to the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 prevents federal, state, and local governments from receiving certain federal funds if they discriminate against health care providers, including health insurance plans, that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. Pub. L. 110 329, Div. A, Section 101 (Sept. 30, 2008) 122 Stat. 3574,
30

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #: 144
3575. This “conscience clause” is designed to prevent discrimination against health care providers who have a moral objection to abortion.
139. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling includes “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures.”
140. Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods include, among other drugs, devices and procedures, birth control pills, prescription contraceptive devices, Plan B (also known as the “morning after pill”), and ulipristal (also known as “ella” or the “week after pill”).
141. Plan B and ella can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus and can cause the death of an embryo. The use of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus or to cause the death of an embryo each constitute an “abortion” as that term is used in federal law. Consequently, Plan B and ella cause abortions.
142. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraceptives that cause abortions violates Section 1303(b)(1)(A) of the Affordable Care Act and the Weldon Amendment.
143. As set forth above, the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates the free exercise of religion and the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
31

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #: 145
144. Because the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is “contrary to existing law,” Priests for Life is further entitled to relief under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
145. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional and statutory rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff Priests for Life prays for judgment as follows: A. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution; B. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; C. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; D. That this Court issue an order preliminarily and permanently prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for, or access to, contraception, sterilization, abortifacients,
32

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #: 146
and related education and counseling against Priests for Life and other persons who object to
providing coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and
counseling;
E. That this Court award Priests for Life its reasonable costs, including attorney’s
fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 5 U.S.C. § 504, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and the general legal
and equitable powers of this Court;
F. That this Court grant such other and further relief as it deems equitable and just
under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LiMANDRI, APC
/s/ Charles S. Limandri Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.* (NY Bar No. 830162) Teresa Mendoza, Esq.* (CA Bar No. 185820) Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 climandri@limandri.com (858) 759-9930 *Admitted pro hac vice
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER
/s/ David Yerushalmi David Yerushalmi, Esq. (AZ. Bar No. 009616; DC Bar No. 978179; CA Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568) 640 Eastern Parkway, Suite 4C Brooklyn, NY 11213 dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org (646) 262-0500
Robert J. Muise, Esq.* (MI Bar No. P62849) P.O. Box 131098 Ann Arbor, MI 48113 rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org (734) 635-3756 *Admitted pro hac vice
Counsel for Plaintiff Priests for Life
33

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 12 Filed 05/14/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #: 147 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 14, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER /s/ Robert J. Muise Robert J. Muise, Esq.
34

 
 Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PRIESTS FOR LIFE,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her ofTicial capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and I-Iuman Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
HILDA SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury; and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants.

Case No.- - COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Priests for Life ("Plaintil1"), by and through undersigned counsel, brings this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors 111 office, and in support thereof alleges the following upon information and belief
INTRODUCTION I. This is a eivil action pursuant to which Plaintiff Priests fell· Life seeks a Preliminary and Permanent Injunetion, enjoining Defendants ii'om implementing and enfe)rcing provisions of the regulations promulgated under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." These regulations require employers to provide insurancc plans that include coverage for contraception, stcrilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
substantial penalty flnes. This mandate violates Priests fi)!' Life's rights to the fiee exercise of religion and the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
2. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff Priests for Life and Defendants involving substantial Constitutional issues. Priests for Life asserts that provisions of the regulations promulgated under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" which require employers to provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in that they, among other things, violate Priests for Life's rights to the fi'ee exercise of religion and the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Defendants assert that these regulatory provisions comport with the Constitution, that no compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act is necessary, and that they are lawfully empowcred to cnforce and implement the subject regulations.
3. Consequently, PlaintitTPriests for Life also seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the regulations promulgated under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (hereinafter "Affordable Care Act") requiring employers to provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related cducation and counseling or incur substantial penalty fInes violate Priests for Life's rights to the fi'ee exercise of religion and the fi'eedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
4. The AfTordable Care Act's contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient mandate violates the rights of Priests for Life as a Catholic organization. The mandate also violates the
2

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
freedom of all people of faith, and even those of no hlith, who have a conscientious objection to contraception, sterilization, or abortion. Priests for Life brings this aetion to vindicate not only its own rights, but to protcct the rights of all Americans who care about our constitutional guarantees of the li"ee exercise of religion and the li"eedom of speech, as well as thc protection of innocent human life.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action in which the United Statcs is a defendant arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Jurisdiction is eonferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1346. 6. Priests for Life's claims for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by 28 U.S.c. § 2000bb-l, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 7. Venue is proper under 28 U.s.c. § 1391 (e) because this is the judicial district in which Priests for Life is located.
PARTIES 8. PlaintilT Priests for Life is a non-profit corporation that is incorporated under the laws 01" the State of New York. It has its principal place of business in the County of Richmond, Ncw York. And it is recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501(e)(3)
organization.
9. Defendant Kathleen Sebe1ius is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter "HHS"). In this eapacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of HI-IS. Defendant Sebe1ius is sued in her official capacity only.
3

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
10. Defendant HHS is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcemcnt of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
II. Defendant Hilda Solis is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. In this capacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of the Department of Labor. Defendant Solis is sued in her official capacity only.
12. Defendant Department of Labor is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforccment of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
13. Defcndant Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury. In this capacity, he has responsibility f()l· the operation and management of the Department of the Treasury. Defendant Geithner is sued in his official capacity only.
14. Defendant Department of the Treasury is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enf<ll·cemenl of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The Affordable Care Act
IS. In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (20 10), {(mended by I-lealthcare and Education Reconciliation Act of2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010)) (hereinafter "Affordable Care Act" or "Act").
4

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
16, Among many other things, the Affordable Care Act requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide federal government-approved health insurance or pay a substantial per-employee fine, (26 U,S,c' § 4980B,)
The Affordable Care Act - Not a Gcncral Law of Neutral Applicability 17, To date, HHS has granted over 1,000 individualized waiver requests hom employers and to insurance plans excusing their compliance with the Affordable Care Act. 18, The fine for failurc to offcr an approved health insurance plan docs not apply to employers with fewcr than 50 employees, not counting seasonal workers, (26 U.S,c' § 4980H), 19, Certain provisions of the Act do not apply to mcmbers of certain religious groups, (See, e,g" 26 US,c' § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) [individualmandatc docs not apply to members of a "rccognized religious sect or division" that conscientiously objccts to acceptance of public or private insurance funds); § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(ii) [individual mandate docs not apply to members of "health care sharing ministry" that meets certain criteria,]), None of these exceptions apply to Priests for Life, 20, The Affordable Care Act's preventive care rcquircmcnts (described below) do not apply to employers who provide so-called "grand fathered" health care plans, 21, The Affordable Care Act is not generally applicable because it docs not apply equally to all individuals and employers; because the Act provides for numerous exemptions ii'om its provisions; and because j·ll·IS grants individualized waiver requests excusing some employers from complying with the provisions of the Act. 22, The Affordable Care is not neutral because some groups, both secular and religious, enjoy exemptions !i'om certain provisions of the Act, which others do not; because
5

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
some groups, both secular and religious, have reccived WaIvers li'OJ11 complying with the provisions of the Act, whilc others have not.
The Affordable Care Act - Devclopmcnt of the Preventive Services Mandate 23. Among other things, one provision of the Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurers "provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for ... with respect to women, such additional prevcntative care and screcnings ... as provided i(lr in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration." (42 U.S.c. § 300gg-1 3(a)(4)). 24. On July 19,2010, l-J]-IS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury, published interim IInal regulations "implementing the rules for group health plans and health insurance covcragc in thc group and individual markets under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act regarding preventive health services." (75 Fed. Reg. 41726 (2010)). Among other things, tbc interim IInal regulations rcquircd health insurcrs to cover preventive care for womcn "as provided for in guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration." (75 FecI. Reg. 41759 (2010)). 25. HHS accepted public comments to the 2010 interim fInal regulations until September 17,2010. Upon information and bc1ict~ a large number of groups filed comments, warning of the potential conscience implications of requiring religious individuals and groups to pay for certain kinds of services, including contraception, sterilization, and abortion. 26. I-ll-IS commissioned a study by a private health policy organization, the Institute of Medicine (hereinafter "10M"), "to review what preventive services are necessary for women's health and well-being and should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines for preventive services for women." (See hltp:llwww.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
6

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
27. In conducting its study, 10M invited the various pro-elective abortion groups and individuals to make presentations on the preventive care that should be provided by all health insurers, including the following: the Gu11macher Institute, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Women's Law Center, the National Women's Health Network, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, John Santelli, and Sara Rosenbaum. (See h11p://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id= 13181 &page=217).
28. No religious groups or other groups that oppose governmcnt-mandated covcrage of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling were among the invited presenters. (See http://www.nap.edu/opcnbook.php?record id= 13181 &pagc=217).
29. On July 19, 2011, 10M published a report of its study regarding preventive care for women. Among other things, 10M recommended that preventive services include "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods [and] sterilization procedures." (See Institute of Medicine, Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011)).
30. Federal Drug Administration-approved contraccptive methods include, among other drugs, devices and procedures, birth control pills, prescription contraceptive devices, Plan B (also known as the "morning atter pill"), and ulipristal (also known as "ella" or the "week afier pill").
31. Plan B and ella can prevcnt the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus and can cause the death of an emblYo. The use of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus or to cause the death of an embryo each constitute an "abortion" as that term is used in federal law. Consequently, Plan B and ella arc abortifacients.
7

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
32. On August 1, 2011, HHS's Health Resources and Services Administration (hereinafter "HRSA") announced that it was supporting "the 10M's recommendations on preventive servIces that address health needs specific to women and Ell gaps in existing guidelines." HRSA entitled the recommendations "Women's Preventive Serviccs: Requircd Health Plan Covcrage Guidelines." Among other things, HRSA's Guidelines inelude "[a]l1 Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all womcn with reproductive capacity." (See http://www .hrsa. gov/womensguidelines).
The Affordable Care Act - Adoption of the Contraceptive Services Mandate 33. On August 3, 201 I, HHS, along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury published interim final regulations which, among other things, mandate that all health insurers "provide benefits for and prohibit the imposition of cost-sharing: . . . . With respect to women, preventive eare and screening provided for in comprehcnsive guidelines supported by I-IRSA . . . which will be commonly known as HRSA's Women's Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines." (76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (20 II); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130). 34. Defendant Depar"lments "determined that an additional opportunity fbr public comment would be impractical and contrary to the public interest" and promulgated the fInal regulation without waiting It)r public comment. 35. The August 3, 2011, interim final regulations noted that "scveral commentcrs [to the July 19,2010 interim final regulations] asserted that requiring group health plans sponsored by religious employers to covcr contraceptive services that their faith deems contrary to its religious tenets would impinge upon their religious fi·eedol11." Accordingly, "the Departments
8

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
seek to prove for a religious accommodation that respccts the uniquc relationship between a house of worship and its employees in ministcrial positions. .. [T]he Dcpartmcnts are amending the interim final rules to provide HRSA additional discretion to exempt certain religious employees li'Ol11 the Guidclines wherc contraceptive services are concerned." (emphasis added).
36. For purposes of this discretionary excmption, a "religious employer is one thal: (I) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-proJ1t organization under section 6033(a)(I) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii)." (76 FecI. Reg. 46621 (2011); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130).
37. Priests for Life does not qualify as a "religious employer" for purposes of the discretionary exemption.
38. Although HI-IS accepted public comments to the 20 II interim final regnlations until Septcmber 30, 20 II, it went into efrect immediately.
39. Heath insurers are required to begin providing the coverage mandated by HRSA's Women's Preventive Care Guidelines in the first plan year (in the individual market, policy year) that begins on or after August I, 2012.
40. Thus, by the stroke of a bureauerat's pen, the federal government purported to elfect a rule forcing private health plans nationwide to cover sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortion. All the other mandated "preventive services" prevent disease, but pregnancy is not a diseasc. Moreover, forcing plans to cover abortifacients violates existing federal conscience laws.
41. The contraeeptive servlCCS eomponent of the preventive servIces mandate imposes a substantial burden oj' unprecedented reach and severity on the consciences of those
9

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
who consider such "serviccs" immoral: insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers and schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual employees and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage.
42. Upon information and belief; I-JHS received tcns of thousands of comments objecting to the mandate regarding the provision of contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients.
43. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops called for a rescISSIOn of the contraceptive mandate, and, in the event HHS insisted on keeping the mandate, urged I-II-IS to provide a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders-not just the extremely small subset of "religious employers" that HHS proposed to exempt initially.
44. On January 20, 20 I0, Defendant Sebelius announced that: "Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August I, 2013, to comply with the new law." She further announced that: "We intend to require employers that do not olTer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive serviccs are available at sites such as community health ccntcrs, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support." (See http://www.hbs.gov/ncws/prcss/2012prcs/01/20120120a.html).
45. To date, HHS has not promulgated any rule or regulation implcmenting cither the one-year extension or the compelled speech requirement.
46. On February 10, 20 II, President Obama announced that his Administration intends to propose and finalizc a ncw rcgulation that "will requirc insurance companics to cover contraception if the non-exempted rcligious organization chooses not to... Contraception coverage will be olTered to women by their employers' insurance companies directly, with no
10

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
role for religious employers who oppose contraception." (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-oHice/2 012/021 IO/fact-sheet-women-s-preventive-serviees-and-reI igious-institutions).
47. While Defendant Sebelius claimed that women may pay up to $600 per year for contraceptive services, she asscrted that insurers could providc those services to covered employees at no cost because "on balance, prcventive services around family planning, avoiding what may be unhealthy pregnancies, avoiding the health consequences of that actually is a cost reducer." (See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/Jan-juneI2/eontn)c!..11(ion".02-l0.html).
48. Insurance companies do not donate products and services to covered employees. Drug makers will still charge insurers for birth control pills, IUD's, and other contraceptive devices. Doctors will still bill insurers for reproductive treatment. The reality, as with all mandated benelits, is that these costs will be borne eventually via higher premiums. Insurers may amortize the cost differently over time, but eventually prices will find an equilibrium. Priests for Life will still pay for contraceptive services, including abortifacients, even if it is nominally carried by a third-party corporation. (See http://onlinc.wsj.com/article/SB I000 142405297020364600457721 5 I500682 I5494.hll11l).
49. There is no logical or 1110ral distinction betwcen the original contraceptive services mandate and the "revised" regulation announced on February 10,2011. Employers who offcr health insurance do not pay for individual benefits and products as they arc provided. Rather, they pay a premium for a policy that gives their employees access to covered benefits and products when they need them. Under the "rcvised" rcgulation, all non-exempted hcalth plans l11ust include contraceptive services among their covered benefits. The choice for religious employers is still between paying an insurer to provide their employees with access to a product
I I

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
that violates their convictions (i.e., contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients) or paying a large annual fine to the federal government.
Priests for Life - Mission 50. Priests for Life was founded in 1991 to do one of the most important tasks in the Church today: to help priests around the world spread the Gospel of Life to their people. The mission of Priests for Life is to unite and encourage all clergy to give special emphasis to the life issues in their ministry. It also seeks to help them take a more vocal and active role in the prolife movement, with predominant emphasis on the issues of abortion and euthanasia. Priests fCl!· Life exists in order to show the clergy how to fight the culture of death. 51. Priests for Life's Mission Statement provides: "As a Private Association of the Faithful, recognized and approved under the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, and working in harmony with the goals of the Bishops' Pro-Life Committee and the local diocesan respect life offIces, Priests for Life seeks to:
1. unite, encourage, and provide ongoing training to priests and deacons who give a special emphasis to the 'life issues', especially abortion and euthanasia, in their 111inistries;
2. instill a sense of urgency in all clergy to teach about these issues and to mobilize their people to help stop abortion and euthanasia;
3. assist clergy and laity to work together productively fClr the cause oflife; 4. provide ongoing training and motivation to the entire pro-life movement." 52. With the co-operation of bishops and their respect life ofi1ees, Priests for Life provides a bi-monthly newsletter to priests and deacons. This inf(mnative newsletter is also available to the general public. Priests for Life offers pro-life seminars and retreats to both
12

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
clergy and laity. With the permission of their respective ordinaries, the National Director of Priests for Life and his associates travel the country full time to meet with priests and pro-life groups. Priests for Life offers a wide range of audios, videos, and brochures, and regularly uses the media of television, radio, and the printed prcss to spread the message of life.
53. Priests for Life also represents a family of ministries that reach and enrich every aspect of the pro-life movemcnt, for clergy and laity alike, in a wide variety of activities, including direct ministries to priests, deacons, and seminarians; youth outreach; healing ministries; broadcasting; prayer campaigns; education regarding public policy; and facilitating relationships among pro-life organizations and leaders.
Priests for Life - Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Regarding Contraceptive Practices and Abortion
54. A deep devotion to the Catholic faith is central to the mission of Priests for Life. 55. Priests for Life holds and actively professes rcligious belicfs that include traditional Christian teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality. In particular, in accordance with Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humallae Vitae, Pricsts fix Life believes that
human sexuality has two primary purposes: to "most closely unit[e1husband and wifc" and "for
the generation of new lives." Priests for Lifc believcs and actively professes the Catholic Church teaching that "[1]0 use this divine gin dcstroying, even if only partially, its meaning and purpose is to contradict the naturc both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therei()re it is to contradict also the plan of God and His Will." Therefore, Priests for Life believes and teaches that "any action which either bet()re, at the moment of; or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intcnded to prevent procreation, whether as an end or as a means" including contraception and stcrilization-,-is a grave sin.
13

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
56. Priests for Life also holds and actively professes religious beliefs that include traditional Christian teaching on the sanctity of life. It believes and tcaches that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore all human lifc is sacred and prccious hom the moment of conception. Conscquently, Priests it)r Life believes and teaches that abortion ends a human life and is a grave sin.
57. Further, Priests for Life subscribes to authoritative Catholic teaching about the proper nature and aims of health care and medical treatment. For example, Priests it)r Life believes, in accordance with Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical Evongelium Vitae, that '" [clausing death' can never be considered a form of medical treatment," but rather "runs completely counter to the health-care profession, which is meant to be an impassioned and unflinching affirmation of life."
58. Based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, and its own deeply held beliefs, Priests for Life does not believe that contraception, sterilization, or abortion arc properly understood to constitute medicine, health care, or a means of providing for the well-being of persons. Indeed, Priests for Life believes these procedures involve gravely immoral practices.
Priests for Live - Employee Health Insurance 59. Priests for Life has approximately 50 to 60 employees. 60. As part of its commitment to Catholic social teaching, Priests for Life promotes the health and well-being of its employees. In furtherance of this commitment, Priests for Life provides health insurance for its employees. 61. Priests tt)r Life ensures that its insurance policies do not cover drugs, devices, services, or procedures inconsistent with its faith, including contraception.
14

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
62. Priests for Life cannot provide health insurance covering artiflcial contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its deeply held religious beliefs.
63. Priests l()]' Life cannot provide inl()j'jnation or guidance to its cmployees about othcr locations at which thcy can access artificial contraception, sterilization, or abortion, or related education and counseling, without violating its deeply held religious beliefs.
64. Priests for Life is flmded solely through tax-deductible donations. Donors who give to Priests for Life do so with an understanding of Priest for Life's mission and with the assurance that Priests f()]' Life will continue to adhere to, disseminate, and report reliable Catholic teaching on the sanctity oflife and human sexuality.
65. Priests for Life cannot usc donated funds for purposes known to be morally repugnant to its donors and in ways that would violate the implicit trust of the purpose of their donations.
66. If Priests for Life does not provide health insurance lor its employees, it will be subject to onerous fines.
67. Priests l()r Life's next plan year will commence in January 2013. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Free Exercise of Religion - Violation of the First Amendment) 68. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set 10rth herein. 69. The AlJ(mlable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and
15

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
counseling violates Priests for Life's right to the lice exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
70. Priests for Life's sincerely held religious belicfs prohibit it fi'(lI11 providing insurance coverage for contraccption, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling. Priests for Life's compliance with thcsc belief's is a religious exercise.
71. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that Priests for Life provide health ll1surance that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling substantially burdens Priests for Lifc's sincerely-held religious belief's.
72. The Affordable Care Act's requircment that Priests for Life provide health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and rclated education and counseling chills Priests for Life's religious exercise.
73. Priests for Life must choose between being farced to purchase health insurance for its employees that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or paying substantial penalty lines.
74. The Afl'ordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide health insurance that eovcrs contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling creates government-imposed coercive pressure on Priests far Life to change or violate its sincerely-held religious belief's.
75. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling exposes Priests ft)r Life to signifIcant competitive disadvantage, in that it will no longer be able to offer its cmployees health insurance.
16

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
76. The Affordable Care Act's rcquircmcnt that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines does not further any compelling governmental interest.
77. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage fi)r contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines is not the least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible governmental interest.
78. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines is a restriction on the fi·ee exercise of religion which is not narrowly tailored to advance any permissible governmental interest.
79. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling does not accommodate Priests for Life's sincerely-held religious beliefs.
80. The Afi(miable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage h,r contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines is not a general law of neutral applicability.
81. Notwithstanding its receipt of mUltiple objections to thc Affordable Care Act's rcquirement that cmploycrs provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling on the basis that it would violate certain persons' sincerely-held religious belief's, Defendants designed that requirement
17

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
and its "religious employer" exemption in a way that makes it impossible for Priests for Life to comply with its religious beliefs.
82. By design, the Affordable Care Act's requirement that cmploycrs provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is imposed on some religious organizations, but not others, resulting in discrimination among religions.
83. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is official action that targets religious conduct and beliefs for distinctive and discriminatory adverse treatment.
84. Defendants promulgated the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling in order to suppress Priests for Life's and others' right to free exercise of religion.
85. The Allordable Care Act's violation of Priests lor Life'S right of (i'ee exercise of religion has caused, and will continue to cause, Priests for Life to suffer unduc hardship and irreparable injury.
86. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Religions Freedom Restoration Act) 87. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
18

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 19
88. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacicnts, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty flnes violates the Religious Freedom Rcstoration Act (42 U.S.c. § 2000bb, et. seq.).
89. Priests lor Life's sincerely held rcligious beliefs prohibit it Ji'om providing insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, and related education and counseling. Priests for Life's compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise.
90. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that Priests for Life provide health insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling substantially burdens Priests for Life's sincerely-held religious beliefs.
91. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurancc plans that include coverage lor contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial pcnalty flnes does not further any compelling govcrnmental intercst.
92. 'rhe Aflordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include covcragc for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and relatcd education and counseling or incur substantial penalty flncs is not thc least restrictive means to accomplish any permissible govcrnmental interest.
93. The Affordable Care Act's violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has caused, and will continue to cause, Pricsts for Lifc to suffer undue hardship and irreparable ll1Jury.
94. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
19

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 20
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Freedom of Speech - Violation of the First Amendment) 95. Priests for Life hereby incorporates by reference all stated paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 96. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling violates Priests for Life's right to fi-ee speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 97. The HRSA Women's Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines mandate that non-exempt employer-sponsored health plans must cover "preventive services" which include "Contraceptive methods and counseling: All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods; sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." 98. The Afi(mlable Care Act's contraception coverage mandate compels Priests for Life to subsidize education and counseling regarding contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and abortifacients. 99. The Affordable Carc Act's contraception coverage mandate compels Pricsts for Lifc to provide education and counseling regarding contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and abortifacients in violation of its sincerely-held religious beliefs. 100. The Aflordable Care Act's contraccption coveragc mandate compels Priests for Life to engage in speech that violates its sincerely-held religious beliefs.
20

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 21
101. The Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest.
102. Dcfendants promulgated the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling in order to suppress Priests for Life's and others' right to fi'ee speech.
103. The AfJordable Care Act's violation of Priests for Life's right of free speech has caused, and will continue to cause, Priests for Life to suHer undue hardship and irrcparable Il1Jury.
104. Priests for LifC has no adequate remedy at law to eorrcet thc continuing deprivation of its constitutional rights.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act) 105. Priests for Lile hereby incorporates by referencc all stated paragraphs as though fully set tenth herein. 106. Because the Affordable Care Act itself does not specify a standard for judicial revicw, it is subjcct to review under the default standard of the Administrative Procedure Act. (5 U.S.c. § 706(2)). At issue in this lawsuit is whether adoption of the Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage Jell' contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines was "without observance of procedure required by law" and/or "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discrction, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
21

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 22
107. The Administrative Procedure Act reqUIres general notice of a proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment before promUlgation of a rulemaking, unless the agency, for good cause, Ends that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. (5 U.S.c. § 551, et seq.).
lOS. Defendant Departments purported to find good cause to f(ll'ego public comment on the August 3, 2011, intcrim Enal regulations on the Affordablc Carc Aet's preventive eare mandate on the basis that the public had the opportunity to comment on the previous interim
». final rule issued on July 19, 2010. (76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (20 II
109. The July 19, 20 I0, interim final rule, however, did not include HRSA's Women's Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines, which mandated the coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling. Accordingly, the public was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the contraception mandate in the preventive services provision of the Affordable Care Act.
110. Because Defendant Departments took agency action "not 111 observance of procedure required by law," Priests for Life is entitlcd to relief under 5 U.S.c. § 706(2)(D).
Ill. Similarly, Defendant Departments' decision to adopt the August 3, 2011, interim final regulations was made without considering the public's comments on the specific preventive procedures mandated therein, including coverage for contraecption, sterilization, abortiLlcicnts, and related education and counseling. Therefore, its action was "arbitrmy, capricious, [and] an abuse of discrction." Priests fClr Life is thereforc also entitled to relief under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
112. Section 1303(b)(l)(A) of the Affordable Care Act states that "nothing in this title"~ (i.e., Title 1 of the Act, whieh includes the provision dealing with "preventive
22

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 23 of 26 PageID #: 23
serviees")-"shall be construed to reqUIre a qualifled health plan to provide coverage of [abortion] services ... as part of its essential health bencflts for any plan year."
113. Further, the Weldon Amendment to the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistancc, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009 prevcnts federal, state, and local governments from receiving certain federal funds if they discriminate against health care providers, including health insurance plans, that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage ot~ or refer for abortions. (Pub. L. 110329, Div. A, Section 101 (Sept. 30,2008) 122 Stat. 3574, 3575). This "conscience clause" is designed to prevent discrimination against health care providers who have a moral objection to abOliion.
114. The Affordable Care Act's requircment that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and relatcd education and counseling includes "[alll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures."
115. Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods include, among other drugs, devices and procedures, birth control pills, prescription contraceptive devices, Plan B (also known as the "morning after pill"), and ulipristal (also known as "ella" or the "week after pill").
116. Plan B and ella can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus and can cause the death of an cmbryo. The usc of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human cmbryo in the wall of the uterus or to cause the death of an embryo each constitutc an "abortion" as that term is uscd in fedcral law. Consequently, Plan B and ella cause abortions.
23

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 24 of 26 PageID #: 24
117. The Affordable Care Act's rcquirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraceptives that cause abortions violates Section 1303(b)(1 )(A) of thc Affordable Care Act and the Weldon Amendment.
118. As set forth above, the Af10rdable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that includc coverage for contraccption, sterilization, abortif~leients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines violates the fi"cc exercise of religion and thc fi·ce spceeh guarantees of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
119. Because the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortif~lcicnts, and related education and counseling or pay substantial penalty fines is "contrary to existing law," Priests for Life is further entitled to relief under 5 U.S.c. § 706(2)(A).
120. Priests for Life has no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing deprivation of its constitutional and statutory rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Whcrclc)rc, Plaintiff Priests f<)1" Life prays for judgment as follows: A. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty flnes violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; B. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act's rcquirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortif~leients, and
24

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 25 of 26 PageID #: 25

related education and counseling or Incur substantial penalty fines violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
C. That this Court declare that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, ab0l1ifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fin es was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;
D. That this Court Issue an order preliminarily and permanently prohibiting Defendants from enforcing the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers provide insurance plans that include coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling or incur substantial penalty fines aga inst Priests for Life and other persons who object to providing coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacients, and related education and counseling;
E. That this Court award Priests for Life its reasonabl e costs, including attorney's fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 24 12, 5 U.S.c. § 504,42 U.S.c. § 2000bb-l, and the general legal and equ itab le powers of thi s Court;
F. That this Coul1 grant such other and further relief as it deems equitabl e and just under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LiMANDRI, APC

Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.

ar No . 8

Teresa Mendoza, Esq* (CA Bar No. 185820)

Box 91 20

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

c1imandri @ lim andr i.com

(858) 759-9930

* Subject to admission pro hac vice

25

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 26 of 26 PageID #: 26
AMERICAN FREEDOM LAW CENTER David Yerushalmi, Esq. (AZ. Bar No. 009616; DC BarNo. 978179; CA Bar No. 132011; NY Bar No. 4632568) 640 Eastern Parkway, Suite 4C Brooklyn, NY 11213 dyerushalmi @americanfreedomlawcenter.org (646) 262-0500 Robel11. Muise, Esq* (M! Bar No. P62849) P.O. Box 13 1098 ArU1 Arbor, MI 48 11 3 rmuise@a mericanfreedomlawcenter.org (734) 635-3756 *Subject to admission pro hac vice Counsel/or PlaintiffPriests for Life
26

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 27

JS 44 ( Rev, 091 1I)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

TheJS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herei n nei the r replaec norsup p lelllcnt the filing and service of pleadings or other papers a s required by law, except as prov ided by lo cal mles ofeo Ul1. This forlll , approved by th e Judicial Conference ofthc United Statcs in September 1974, is required for the usc o f the Clerk ofC our\ for the purpose oflllitiating
the civil d ocket s hect. (S/::£ INS71WCTlONS ON N£A7 PA GE OP THIS I·ORAl.)

I. (a) PLAINT IF FS Priests for Life
(b) County of Residence of F irsl L isted Plaint iff BicbruQOd
u. s (EXCEPT IN PLAINTIFF CASES)

PeecErFeJtaNrDy ~1&e p t HHS Kathleen Sebe liu s i US Dept HHS ; secretary us Dep t Labor Hilda Solis ; US Dep t Labor ;
Secre t ary US Dept Labor Timothy Geithner ; US Dep art Treas .

County of Res idence of F irst L istcd Dcfcndant Washington D.C. u. s (IN PLAINTIFF CASES ONU)

NOT E:

IN LAND CON DEMNATION CASES, US E THE LOCAT ION OF T HE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Da~~d ¢ettOrunslJiaS(m{irim&NRl0lebAedrdtl'~U, {llsmel,T%..empheonn~cNaIInIII~'r)eedom Law Center, 640

Al10rncys (I/KIIOI1'II)

Easte rn Parkway, Ste 4C, Bklyn NY 11213, 646-262-0500; Charles

LiMandri Teresa Mendoza POB 9120 Rancho Santa Fe CA 92067

II. BASIS OF J URISDI CTION (Place WI "X" ill Olle Box Dilly)

III , C ITI ZENS HIP O F PRI NC IPAL PARTIES (Place 011 "X" ill aile Bo,tf ol' Plain/iff)

(For Divel'sily Cases Dilly)

ami aile Boxf ol' Defendalll)

01 U.S, Government

OJ Federal Question

PTF DEI"

PTF DEI"

Pl ain ti f f

(U.s. GOW!I'IlIlIelll No/ a Par/y)

Ci tizen of This State

0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place

0 4 04

o f Business In This State

~2 U,S, Government Defendant

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Cilizellship of Pm'lies ill I/em1fJ)

Citizen of Anothcr State

o 2

0 2 Incorporated alld principal place of Business In Another State

0 5 05

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (pI,,,,,,, "X" ;" O",8QxO"ly)

Citizen or Subjec t of a Forci ' II Country

o J 0 J Foreign Nation

0 6 06

0 110 Insurance

0 120 Ma rine

0 130 Miller Aet

0 140 Negotiable Instru ment

0 150 Recovery U I '

&

ni

0 151 Medi care Ac t

0 152 Recovery of Defaul ted

Student Loans

(Excl. Vetera ns)

0 153 Recovery of Overp.1ymen t

of Vetera n's Benefits

0 160 Stockholders' Suils

0 190 Other Contrac t

0 195 Contract Product Liability

0 196 Franchise

o 210 L,"d '

,

o 220 Foreclosure

o 230 Re nt Lease & Ejectmen t

o 240 To rts to Land

o 245 Ton Pro<luet Liability

o 290 All Other Real Property

PE RSO NAL INJU RY
o 310 Airplane o 315 Airplit ne Produc t

L iabil ity
o 320 Assa ult, Libel &

Slan de r
a 330 Federal Employers'

~

Liabili ty

340 Marine

o 345 Marine Pro<luct

Liability

~ 350 Motor Vehicle
o 355 Motor Vehicle

10 Product Liabil ity 360 Other Personal

10 Injury 362 ~:n~l ~njll,?:-_

I" 440 m" Ci,il Rigl'"
I ~ 441 Voting
o 442 Em ployment o 443 Housingl
10 Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities-
10 Employment 446 Amer. wlDisabili ties-
10 Other 448 Educa tion

o I' ERSO NAL INJ URY

625 Drug Rela tcd Seizure

0 365 Pcrsonall nj ury Pro<luc t Liability

of Propcny2l USC 881
o 690 Other

0 367 Health Carel

Pha nnaceu tieal

Personal Injury

Pro<luet Liability

0 368 Asbes tos Personal

Injury Produc t

Liability

o I'E RSO NAL PROI'EltTY 71 0 F,;, I

o 370 Other Fraud

Ao<

0 371 Tn lth in Lending

o 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations

0 380 Other Personal Propcn y Damage

~ 740 Railway Labor Ac t
o 751 F~lInily and Mcdical

0 385 Property Damage

Leave Act

Product Liability
O~"'V;""

o~ 790 Other Labor Li ti gatio n 791 Emp!. ReI. Inc. Security Act

Sen tence

Habeas Co rpus: 0 530 General 0 535 Dealh Penalty

10'"Li ' I':' 0 540 Mandamus & Other

0 550 Civil Righ ts

463 Habeas Corpus -

i

0 555 Prison Condi tion

Alien Detainee

0 560 Civil Detainee Co nd itio ns of

10 (Prisoner Petition) 465 Other Immigration

Confincment

AC lions

~ 422 Appcitl 28 USC 158
o 423 Wi thdrawa l
28USCI57
~ o . 830 Patent
o 840 Trademark
, I
o 861 HIA .<'39511).
~ 862 Black Lung (923) ~ 863 DIWC/ DI WW (405(g»
864 SSID Ti tlc XV I
o 865 RSI (405(g»
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plain tiff
or Defe ndant)
o 871 IRS- Third Party
26 USC 7609

0 375 Fa lsc Claims Act 0 400 State Reapponionmen t 0 410 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Comlpt Organizations 0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 850 Securi tieslCommoditiesl
Exchange 0 890 Other Statmory Actions 0 891 Agricul tural Acts 0 893 Environme nta l Mattcrs 0 895 Freedom ofl nfonnit tion
A" 0 896 Arbitra tion 0 899 Administra tive Procedure
ActlRcvicw or Appeal of
Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutional ity of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
~ I Original
Pro cccdi ng

(Place (III "X " ill aile Box Dilly)

o 2 Re moved from

0 3

S tate Court

Rc m and ed fro m Appe lla te Court

o 4 R einsta te d or 0
Reopened

5 Transferred fro m
anothcr d is tri c t
S JCci

o 6 M ult id istrict
Litigation

C ite the U,S, C ivil S ta tute und e r wh icl5'0u are fil i n~ (Do 110 1 circ jllriSI/icliollnl Slnllllcs Ill/Icss dh'ers;ly):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, et. se .; U.S.C. 06 2

VII, REQUESTED IN

Brief desc ripti o n o f ca use :
En'oin US Government from enforcin
o CHECK IF TH IS IS A C LASS ACTION

rovisions of "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

DEMAND $

C H E C K Y ES o nl y if dem andcd in comp laint:

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

JURY DEMAND:

0 Y cs IX No

VIII, RELAT ED CASE(S)

IFANY

(See iIlS/flleliolls):

JUDG E

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
02/15/2012
FOR OFFICE USE ON LY

REC EI PT # _ _ _ __

A MOUNT
----

APPLYING IFP - - - -

JUDGE- - - - MAG. JUDGE - - - - -

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28 EDNY Revision 12/2011
CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY

Local Arbitration Rule 83.J 0 provides lhal with certain exceptions, actions seeking money d,lIllagcs only in an amount not in excess of £150,000,
or exclusive of interest and costs, arc eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.

T, Daw] Yerusilalmi

, counsel for Plamtlff

, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is

ineligible for compulsory arbitration for the following rcason(s):

o

monetary damages sought are in excess of $\50,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

[8]

the complaint seeks injunctive relief,

o

the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1

NONE.

Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:

RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)

Please list a1\ cases that are argnably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that "A civil case is "related" to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues Or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge." Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that" A civil case sball not be deemed "related" to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (8) involves the same parties." Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that "Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases sha!lnot be deemed to be "related" unless both cases arc still pending before the court."

NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE SO.1(d)(2)

1.)

Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York Slate Court located in Nassau or Suffolk

COUl1ly:.~N:::O,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

2.)

If you answered "no" above:

a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk

County?_N_O_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

b) Did the events of omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern District?_y_E_S_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

If your answer to question 2 (b) is "No," does the defendant (or a majority o1'tl1c defendants, if there is morc than one) reside in Nassau or Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than ol1e) reside in Nassau or Suffolk COUl1ty"_--c_ _ _,-:-_;--;c-;-~
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).

BAR ADMISSION

I ml1 currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.

~ Yes

0 No

Arc you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?

DYes (If yes, please explain)

~ No

J certify the accuracy of a11 information provided above. _ Signaturc:~ _ _ _ __

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29

.IS 44 Reverse (Hev 0(111)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The.lS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the f1!ings and service ofp!cading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules orcomt. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the lise of the Clerk of Court for the purpose or initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.

(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintifTor defendant is a governmcnt agency, usc only

the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiffor defendant is an ofTicial within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving

both name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case Wed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the timc of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time off1Jing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the COllllty of residence ofthc "defendant" is the location of the tract ofland involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there arc several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(sec aUachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdictiol1 is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in plcadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdictiol1, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (J) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.c. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States arc included here.

United Stlftes defendant. (2) When the piaintiffis suing the United States, its officcrs or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box I or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C, 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (Sec Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Rcsidcnce (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed ifdiversity ofcitizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sme the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the 1110St definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed frolll State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.c., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appe!1ate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further aetioJl. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Usc the reopening date as the flling date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.c. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistriet litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a l11ultidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.c. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

Appeal to District Judge ti'OI11 Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistratejudge's decisioll.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the eallse of action and give a briefdescription ofthe cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes

unless diversity.

Example:

U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.

Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section oftbe JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there arc related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-2 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 30

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summolls in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Priests for Life

)

v.

)

KlI'rHl,EEN srmEJ.IUS, in hel' offici':'1 CClPilcity as Secret,:,ry, United States
) DepClrtment of Health and Human r,ervices;UNITED S'1'1I'rES DEPll1<'J'1~EN1' OF HE,\LTH

liND IlUHlIN SEJtVICES; IIILDA SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary,

)

Uni.ter1...StilLes...1)epilXLment..,oJ..uLilbru:.;.Uhll:£I::D..,SThU::S".DEl:'AltTl1f,Nl~...QE..J:.J),ll.OR;.'£lN01'llY )

CEI'l'HNl-:R, in his offici,:,l capacity ,:,s Secl'etal',', United States Department of

the 'i'l'e<lSury; and UNITED STlI'rES m::PAH'l'NEN1' OF '1'111'; '1'HEASUl<Y

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Deft.mdallf's name lllld addl'e.%)

TIMOTHY GElTHNER, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury Address: United States Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20220

A lawsuit has becn filcd against you.
Within 21 days aftcr service of this summons OIl you (not counting the day you received it) --- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee ofthc United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by defhull will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

- - - - _.._"_.-

.--.----~.--

SignClture o/Clerk 01' Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-2 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 31

/\0440 (Re\', 121(9) SUllllllons ill" Civil Actioll (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This sectioll sholl/d IIOt be filet! willt Ihe COlIl'llIlIless required by Fed. R. Cil'. P. 4 (I))

This smnmons for (name qnJldividual and title, trollY) was reeci vcd by me on (dale)

o I personally selved the summons on the individual at (i,/ace)

on (daw)

; or

o I lell the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (IIml1e)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
..........................................................................................................................................................................

on (dale)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

n I served the summons on (name o/individual)
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (11mlle <lorganization) on (dale)
---_._-------------
o I refumed the summons unexecuted because
o Other (.ll'ecifj»:

, who is ; or

My fees arc $

for travcl and $

for services, for a total of $
..•..... ~.............•

0.00

I declare under penalty of peljury that this information is tme.

Date:

.Yerllel"s signatllre

Printed name (md litle

Additional informatiou regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-3 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 32
AO 440 (Re-v. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Actinn
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
forthc

Priests for Life

P/aillf{11

V.

)

~;A'rIILEEN SEBEl-IUS. in her offici,,>1 capaci~y M; Secretary. Un; ted States
) D(;p<lrtment of Health and 1IIliniln Sel~vices;UNITE[) S'J'ATES DEPIIR1'NEN1' O!e 11EAllfil

1,ND Hm·jllN SI£HVl(:ES; HILDA SOLIS. in hel: ofUcial capacity as Secn,tary.

)

Sta~e5 Un l1.ruL.S..til..t.eu_.Depar"J:.m.el1L..QI~J,i.l.bUl:,,-UNITJm•.s.·£lI.'l.'ES_DE£ARl14r:NT....Ql':....LAll.0l\.';.Xll{O'l'IIY

Gi<;I'l'HNlm. in his officii)) c<>p(lcity as Secl·etilr:y. United

Depilrtment Of)

the 'J'n~,'S\lry; <>nd UNITED S'rll'fES DEPAI1.'1"NEN'l' OF THE TllElISUHY

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (])"!I(mdal1t:~' name (lnd address)

United States Department of Labor Address: United States Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this smnmOllS on you (not counting the day you received it) --. or 60 days if you arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. YOll also must file your answer or Illotion with the court.

Datc:

CLERK OF COURT

.... ... - ..... .. -_ .. ."

~----"'

" - - - - - --------------.~---,-~

~--.--.---

.)"'jg/Jollll'e o/(,'Ierk 01' Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-3 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 33

A0440 (Rev. 12/(9) Summons in" Civil Adilm (PlIgc 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OIl SERVICE (Tltis sectioll shollld 1101 be filed with lite COllrt /llIless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (1))

This summons for (iwme o/individual (lnd title, {{'allY) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (dare)

; or

...............................

o I left the sumlllons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (/Jame)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (dale)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

Cj 1 served the summons 011 (11(1l11e a/individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name q(organization)

) who is
..•.........•...•.......•................•.......•

- - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - _ . _ . - - _ . . . . . . on (dale) - _ . _.._ - - - - ; or

o I returned the sumlllons unexecuted because

; or

My fees arc $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

1declare under penalty of pel:jmy that this infon11ation is tme.

Date:

Sen'er's signature

Printed name and liI/e

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Sen'er's address

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-4 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 34
AO 440 (Re\'. ! 2/(9) Sumlllons ill a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for Ihe

Priests for Life

)

)

P/aiJl(!U'

)

v.

)

KA'I'H!>EEN smmr,IUS. in hel' officin} capneicy as Secretary, United States
) Depilr:tment of llea)ch .:Ind Iluman Servicel';UNI'fEil S'I'j\'fllS J)EPAH"I'I~ENT OF IlE1I!!1'11

l\NJ~ BUt'JAN SERVICES; IllJ,[)lI SOLIS, in he"' oHici"l capacity m:: Secr:Nary,

)

U n l . L e d . •.sl:iJJ.:.e""-_Depal:J.:.ment.._oL.Lil.bQl:_;JJNl.T.ED__ .sT.l'TELDEi'ARTI1EN~.DE_.l,],IlQR;,TlllOTJIY

Gln'rHNlm, in his oftici"l cilp,wity ill' Sen'etary, United Stntes Depnrtment of: )

the Treasury; and 01-11"1'1';1) 5TA'!'ES DllPlIrlTI·mN'I' 01-' Tim TllEASUHY

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SlJMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendalll's Iwme and addre.'>s)

HILDA SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor Address: United States Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on yO\l (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days ifyou are the United States or a United States agency, or an officcr or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - yon must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on tile plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must tile your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

..-.--...- .. .... .. .. --'"~-~.~

"

-.----.-~.-.~-

-- ---.~.~

~

Signatllre q(Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-4 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 35

AO 440 (Rev. 12!(9) StlllllllOll::> ill a Civil Actioll (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This sectioll S!tOlllrlllot be filed with the COllrt IIlIless required by Fed. R. ('il'. P. 4 (/))

This summons for (/1a/l1(' q(individual and rifle, (t((IIJ~ was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at 01/1I('C) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................

on (dale)

; or

o I len the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (I/(II/Ie)

on (dale)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
.........................................................
, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

(j 1 served the summons on (name ofindividual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name %rgcmizalion)
on (dille)

,who is
...........•.........
; or

o I returned the summons unexecuted because
o Other c,pecifj):

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~.............................................................

_ ; or . .. ............................

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

.................................

I declare under penalty of pCl:jUry that this infoDnation is tme,

Date:

,)'en'er's signature

PrinMd name alld Iflle

0,00

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Sen~er 's address

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-5 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 36
AO 440 (Ro:v. 12(09) SUlllm()ll~ ill a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Priests for Life

v.
KNl'11LEEN SEBE!.IUS. in 118, oHicinl cilp«ciLy ilS SecreUn-y, United Stnt",,,

Depurtment of Henlth ilnd Hum«n Services;UNI'l'ED S'l'1I1'ES DEPIIRTNf.;N'l' OJ' ImAll],!!

AND IlUMAN SEHVICES; Illl,!)A SOI,IS, in her officiill cilpilcity as Secret;;>ry,

)

U n i . t a d .. ,$Ul.t..!?-'>-..D0))ar:.tOlCllll:.,.o.L,.Lilbn,\:.;.UN.l'l'EILS.'tA'l'1::S,,,,D.t·~1'1I1nHlill1: ..nl~..l.J\nOlL;,2'1110·1'1IY

GEI'J'HNEH. in his oJ:ficial cnpncity ilS SecreL«ry. United Stntes Depilrtment of )

the 'J're<~(lUl;Y; i.lnd UNI'rfm S'I'A'I'I,S DEl'AH'1'HEN'l' 01' 1')Jl;; 1'Hf,ASUllY

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Dq(elldanl 's nome (fnd culdress)

United States Department of the Treasury Address: United States Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20220

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you arc the United States or a United States agency, or all officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must servc on the plaintiff an answer to the attaehcd complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
qfClerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-5 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 37

AO 440 (Rev. 121(9) SUllllllons in ,\ Civil J\dion (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF Of SERVICE (1llis seclioll shollid 1101 be filet! willt lite eMll'llIllless reqllired by Fctl R. (II'. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (I/ame qfindfvidua/ and title, [laIlY) was received by me on (da/e)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at O,lace) ......................................................................................................

on (dale)

; Of

..........................................................................

iJ I leil the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (llame)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
........................................................................................................................................................................

on (date)

, anclmailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

LJ I served the summons on (name ofindividual)
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name q(orgollizafi0l1) on (date)
iJ I returned the summons unexecuted because

, who is
- - ; or
; or

iJ Other (sped/i»:

My fees arc $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

................•......•.•......~.. ~

......................................•....

I declare under penalty ofpe~jury that this infol1nation is true.

Date:

Server's signature

Prinled Ilame and fille

0.00

Additiomll information regarding attempted serviec, etc:

Server's address

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-6 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38

;\0440 (Re\', 12/09) Sumlllons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Priests for Life

P/aillf{if

)

v.

)

KI\'J'm,EI';N SE:BEI,IUS, in hel' official c;;lp{3.<:i~y {3.'" SeCI"etary, United SLatG5

) DepllrtmenL of IIGulch dnd lIuman Services;UNI'l'ED S'J'A'l'IlS DEPAR'I'I·mN1' OF HEALTH

AND HUNAN SEilVICI£S; IIlLi)A SOLIS, in hel~ ofrici;;ll cap;;Icity ;;IS Secretiu'y,

)

Uni.1:,e.(L.sLilJ~e;:LJ)epa:r;:,lw.enL_QL.1,<l.b0x.;Jjl'U:e!>.JL.sTll.'J'E:LDEl?AR'l'l1ENT,.oI·~LlIllOR;.l~I~O'l·ll,{

GEI'J'11Nlm, in his official capacity as Secret;;lry, United States Depal:tmcnt oJ. )

the 1'rea5u~'y; i;md UNl'l'lm S'I'A1'llS D1'PAr('j'~mN'l' OF 'filE THEASUHY

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defe/1dant's name and address)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services Address: United States Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S,W, Washington, D,C. 20201

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after sClviec of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) _. or 60 days if you arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee ofthe United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for (he relief demanded in the complaint. Yall also must me your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

.. .-.----.. ,

~--- --------~-

-.-."-~--.---.

Sigllalllre o/Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-6 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39

;\0 ·).10 (Rev. ! 2/(9) S\lmmO!l~ in CI CIvil Action (PClgc 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF 01<' SERVICE (Tltis scctiolt shollid IIOt be filed witlt lite COllrt 11l1less reqllired by Fell. R. Cil'. P. 4 (I))

This summons for (iwmc? qlindividual and title, trollY) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................

on (da/e)
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

; or

o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with Illame)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

011 (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

CJ I served the summons on (name a/individual)
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name q(organization) on (clale)
o I returned the summons unexecuted because o Other i-'lJecij)'):

) who is

; or

; or

. . ... .. ..••........

~

~

My fees are $

for travel and $

. . ...•......................•.....•....

for services, for a totaJ of $
............. .

0.00

I declare under penalty of pe~jury that this infornlUtion is true.

Date:

Sen-el"s signa/we Printed name and litle

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server's address

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-7 Filed 02/15/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 40
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) SUllllllons in ,1 Ch'il Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the

Priests for Life

Plainl{U'

)

v.

)

Ki\'I'IlI.,mm Smml,lUS, in her: official capdcilY .;IS SecreUI):Y, United StOltel>

) Depill--trr.('nt of IleOllth and Human S(;rvices;UN1'l'ED S'l'i\'l'llS l)f,pj\ll'l'NEN'l' OF HEALlr'H

AND Hut-fAN SlmV1C"S; H1LDlI SOI,1.S, in he,· oHic:ioll cap<wity as Secr.etOll"Y,

)

uni.J~Q_SG),l:.es_..nep.u::.tII\el\t .. _o.LLilhol:.:.mU:.t:EtLS:l:a'.tg:LOEP.ARTMEN~, • ..oE...LlillQlL;_:l'lliO'I'11Y

GE1'fllNlm, in his of:f:iciill cap<lcity as Sec:retary, united Slate,; Depillctinent of )

thG 'r,:easury; <1nd lJNl'mD s'rll'n~S J)J,PAH'l'NEN'I' 0;.' Tim 'l'HEASUHY

Civil Action No.

Defendants

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (D<;j(mdalll 's name lind add/'e.'i~)

United States Department of Health and Human Services Address: United States Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S,W, Washington, D,C, 20201

A lawsuit has bccn filed against you.
Within 21 days after scrvice of this summons on you (not counting the day you receivcd it) - or 60 days if you arc the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be servcd on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address arc:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Yall also mllst file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
SignCljllre (?fClerk or Depuf)' Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 1-7 Filed 02/15/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 41

AO 440 (Rev. 12/(9) Summo!}s ill a Civil Action (page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (71tis section should uot be filed with tlte court ultle.I'," requited by Fell R. (lv. P. 4 (I))

This SUlnmons for (iwme q/'illdividua/ and title, !f'mJ.J~
was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at UJ/ace) ...............................................................................................................................................................................................

011 (tiMe)

; or

o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (1/1I1IIe)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
.•....•......••.•..•.••.••..••.•.............••.•.•.•....•.•..•.•..................••....•....•....••.•..•..•.••..•.•.•.....•.•.....••..•....•...

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or

LJ 1 served the summons on (name ofindividual)

, who is
...........................................................................................................................................................................

designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name qforganization)

on (dat(')

; or

o I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $
.••.•............

0,00

I declare under penalty ofpe,jnry that this infofination is true,

Date:

,~'en'eJ"s signaWl'e

Printed name and liI/e

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------x

PRIESTS FOR LIFE,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff,

12-CV-753 (FB)

-against-

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HILDA SOLIS, in her capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x

Appearances: For the Plaintiff: ROBERT MUISE, ESQ. American Freedom Law Center P.O. Box 131098 Ann Arbor, MI 48113

For Defendants: MICHELLE BENNETT, ESQ. United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001

BLOCK, Senior District Judge: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) requires group
health insurance plans to provide coverage for certain preventive medical services without cost sharing. See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). Implementing regulations require contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients to be covered as part of preventive services, though the

regulations exempt certain employers.1 Plaintiff Priests for Life, a non-profit Catholic
organization, contends that it cannot comply with the contraceptive-coverage mandate
without violating its religious beliefs and that the mandate violates the Establishment, Free
Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment; the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fifth Amendment; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and the Administrative Procedure
Act. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Priests for Life lacks standing and that the case is not
ripe for judicial review. Priests for Life has moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
and a preliminary injunction.2 The Court concludes that the claims are not ripe, and
accordingly grants defendants’ motion and denies plaintiff’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Ripeness “is a justiciability doctrine designed to prevent courts, through
avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements
over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until
an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the
challenging parties.” Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807-08 (2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning
1This action is one of many filed throughout the country by religiously affiliated institutions challenging the contraceptive-coverage mandate. Other courts have described the statutory and regulatory background in detail. See, e.g., Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sebelius, ---F. Supp. 2d.----, 2013 WL 1278956, at *2-6 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
2Because Priests for Life believed that it did not meet the criteria for the temporary enforcement safe harbor, the parties entered into a stipulation on December 21, 2012, that defendants would not seek to enforce the mandate against Priests for Life during the safe harbor period. The Court thus dismissed the TRO motion as moot.
2

Appeals, 282 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2002) (“The ripeness requirement prevents a federal court from entangling itself in abstract disagreements over matters that are premature for review because the injury is merely speculative and may never occur, depending on the final administrative resolution.”) To assess both constitutional and prudential ripeness, courts must “evaluate (1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n, 537 U.S. at 808.
Defendants argue that this dispute is not ripe for adjudication because they are in the process of amending the challenged regulations to accommodate religious objections and they have repeatedly represented that they will never enforce the regulations in their current form against Priests for Life or similarly situated entities. Defendants recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) intended to address the concerns of religious organizations. See 78 Fed. Reg. 8456, 8459 (Feb. 6, 2013). The proposed rules “establish accommodations for health coverage established or maintained by eligible organizations … with religious objections to contraceptive coverage,” and propose ways “to provide women with contraceptive coverage without cost sharing and to protect eligible organizations from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 8459, 8462. Echoing defendants’ earlier representations, the NRPM expresses defendants’ intention to finalize the amendments before the end of the safe harbor period. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 8459. At oral argument, defendants reiterated their commitment to finalizing the new rules by August 2013.
The Court finds that the issues raised by this case are not fit for judicial decision.
3

Although the current regulations are published, defendants have repeatedly indicated their intent to amend them. Government agencies are presumed to act in good faith, and defendants have substantiated this presumption through the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the temporary enforcement safe harbor, the NPRM, the stipulation not to take any enforcement action against Priests for Life through December 31, 2013, and their representations to this Court. See Colo. Christian Univ. v. Sebelius, 11-cv-3350, 2013 WL 93188, at *5 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2013). The current regulations, which are not being enforced against Priests for Life and are being altered, are not truly final. See Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sebelius, ---F. Supp. 2d.----, 2013 WL 1278956, at *18 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (noting that the government’s promises to finalize changes and forego enforcement, coupled with the NPRM, have “transformed” the “fundamental nature” of the mandate “into that of a temporary rule”). Adjudicating the current regulations would therefore be a waste of judicial resources. See Persico v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 228200, at *18 (W.D. Pa. 2013). “[T]he fact that the agency is in the middle of a rulemaking process which might altogether alleviate the alleged harm, or at the very least narrow the issues involved, making the eventual resolution of the lawsuit better tailored and much more efficient” strongly counsels this Court to defer review. Eternal Word Television Network, 2013 WL 1278956, at *18; see also Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382, 388-89 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (finding a suit unripe where the agency’s proposed rule change was “a complete reversal of course . . . that, if adopted, would necessitate substantively different legal analysis and would likely moot the analysis we could undertake if deciding the case now”).
The proposed regulations are not fit for review since they are still being formed.
4

The NPRM merely conveys the proposals, and the government has the opportunity to adjust them in response to comments it has received. Any challenge to the proposed rules involves contingent future events that may not occur at all—or at least not as presently anticipated. See Nebraska v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 877 F. Supp. 2d 777, 804 (D. Neb. 2012). Thus, “any attempt by this Court to adjudicate possible future amendments to the Mandate would be too speculative to yield meaningful review.” Persico, 2013 WL 228200, at *19.
The Court further finds that any hardship to Priests for Life fails to outweigh the challenge’s lack of fitness. Because the contents of the new rules are yet to be determined, Priests for Life’s dissatisfaction with the new rules is speculative. Moreover, any harm stemming from the need to plan for the possibility of giving up its health insurance plan in 2014 or paying government fines does not constitute a sufficient hardship for ripeness purposes. See Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 687080, at *16 (N.D. Tex. 2013) (“[T]he inability to prepare for contingencies is not a hardship that outweighs the unfitness for review of the issues in this case.”); Nebraska, 877 F. Supp. 2d at 802. Indeed, if this hardship “were sufficient to require judicial review of a proposed agency decision, the hardship prong would be effectively meaningless, as many organizations plan for the future continually.” Criswell Coll. v. Sebelius, 13-cv-4409, at *12 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2013); see also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 736 F.2d 747, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1984). If Priests for Life is not content with the ultimate regulations, it may renew its legal challenge at that point. See Zubik v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 5932977, at *9 (W.D. Pa. 2012).
Priests for Life’s claims are therefore not ripe for adjudication.3 In so holding,
3Because the Court finds this action unripe, there is no need to address standing. 5

this Court joins the overwhelming majority of courts that have addressed similar challenges
to the contraceptive-coverage mandate by similarly situated plaintiffs.4
The Court further finds that because this case is nonjusticiable the appropriate
course is to dismiss it. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)
(“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function
remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.” (quoting Ex
parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1868))); Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.
2000) (“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)
when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.”). Although
the District of Columbia Circuit decided to hold two unripe challenges to the contraceptive-
coverage mandate in abeyance, see Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551, 553 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
this Court finds no compelling reason to depart from the “customary practice of dismissing
4See Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius, 703 F.3d 551, 552-53 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Criswell Coll., 13-cv-4409, at *8-13; Ave Maria v. Sebelius, 12-cv-88, 2013 WL 1326638, at *1 (Mar. 29, 2013); Eternal Word Television Network, 2013 WL 1278956, at *17-20; Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville v. Sebelius, 12–cv–440, 2013 WL 1189854, at *5-6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2013); Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 838238, at *13-16 (W.D. Pa. 2013); Wenski v. Sebelius, 12–cv–23820, at *7-10 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 5, 2013); Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, 2013 WL 687080, at *15-17; Conlon v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 500835, at *5-6 (N.D. Ill. 2013); Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 328926, at *5-6 (E.D. Mo. 2013); Roman Catholic Archbishop of Wash. v. Sebelius, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 285599, at *3-4 (D.D.C. 2013); Persico, 2013 WL 228200, at *10-21; Colo. Christian Univ., 2013 WL 93188, at *5-9; Catholic Diocese of Peoria v. Sebelius, 12-1276, 2013 WL 74240, at *5 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2013); Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 12–cv–00523, 2012 WL 6756332, at *3-4 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012); Catholic Diocese of Biloxi v. Sebelius, 12–cv–00158, 2012 WL 6831407, at *7 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2012); Zubik, 2012 WL 5932977, at *8-10; Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, 3–12–0934, 2012 WL 5879796, at *4-5 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012); Nebraska, 877 F. Supp. 2d at 800-04. But see Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth v. Sebelius, 12–cv–00314, at *9-12 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2013); Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y. v. Sebelius,--- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2012 WL 6042864, at *20-23 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
6

an unripe case in its entirety,” Colo. Christian Univ., 2013 WL 93188, at *8 (citing 15 James WM. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 108.81 (3d ed. 2011) (“if a necessary component of jurisdiction, such as ripeness, is found to be lacking, the court has no choice but to dismiss the action”)); see also Roman Catholic Diocese of Dallas, 2013 WL 687080, at *17 (“Dismissal is the appropriate action where a claim is not ripe.”). Indeed, all twenty-one district courts to have held that similar challenges to the contraceptive-coverage requirement are not justiciable have dismissed the actions.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, Priests for Life’s motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
Brooklyn, New York April 12, 2013

_________________________________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge

7

 
 Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 59 Filed 04/15/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 741

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------X PRIESTS FOR LIFE,
Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT 12-CV- 0753 (FB)

-against-

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HILDA SOLIS, in her capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor; TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X

A Memorandum and Order of Honorable Frederic Block, United States District

Judge, having been filed on April 12, 2013, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss; denying

Plaintiff’s motion for lack of jurisdiction; and dismissing the Complaint without prejudice; it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted; that

Plaintiff’s motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction; and that the Complaint is dismissed without

prejudice.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York April 15, 2013

Douglas C. Palmer Clerk of Court

by: /s/ Janet Hamilton Deputy Clerk

 
 Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 54 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 708

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division Federal Programs Branch

Mailing Address

Overnight Delivery Address

P.O. Box 883

20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20044 Washington, D.C. 20001

BY ECF

Tel: (202) 305-8902 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Michelle.Bennett@usdoj.gov
April 9, 2013

The Honorable Frederic Block United States District Judge Eastern District of New York United States Courthouse 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Priests for Life v. Sebelius, 12-cv-00753 (FB) (E.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Block:

Defendants hereby submit a notice of supplemental authority to alert the Court to new authority bearing on the issues raised in defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed a case like this one for lack of ripeness. See Ave Maria Univ. v. Sebelius, No. 2:12-cv-88, 2013 WL 1326638 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2013). In light of the enforcement safe harbor, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and defendants “represent[ations] 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,” id. at 1 (quotations omitted), the court “join[ed] 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,” id.1

The court in Ave Maria University thus joined the overwhelming majority of courts (21 out of 23, including one court of appeals) that have accepted defendants’ standing and/or ripeness arguments.

Respectf

ully submitted,

/s/ MICHELLE
U.S.

Michelle R. Bennett BENNETT
Trial Attorney Department of Justice, Civil Division

1 The court did not address the question of standing.

Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 54 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 709
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 9, 2013, the foregoing document was served via the Court’s ECF system
upon the following parties and participants:
Charles S. LiMandri Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, APC Po Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 858-759-9930 858-759-9938 (fax) cslimandri@limandri.com
Teresa L. Mendoza Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, APC Po Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 858-759-9930 858-759-9938 (fax) tmendoza@limandri.com
Robert J. Muise American Freedom Law Center Po Box 131098 Ann Arbor, MI 48113 (734) 635-3756 (801) 760-3901 (fax) rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
David E. Yerushalmi 640 Eastern Parkway Suite 4c Brooklyn, NY 11213 646-262-0500 801-760-3901 (fax) dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org
/s/ Michelle Bennett MICHELLE BENNETT

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 1 of 8
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−00753−FB−RER

CLOSED

Priests for Life v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: Judge Frederic Block Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/15/2012 Date Terminated: 04/12/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Priests for Life

represented by David E. Yerushalmi 640 Eastern Parkway Suite 4c Brooklyn, NY 11213 646−262−0500 Fax: 801−760−3901 Email: dyerushalmi@americanfreedomlawcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Muise American Freedom Law Center Po Box 131098 Ann Arbor, MI 48113 (734)635−3756 Fax: (801)760−3901 Email: rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Charles S. LiMandri Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, APC Po Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 858−759−9930 Fax: 858−759−9938 Email: cslimandri@limandri.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Teresa L. Mendoza Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, APC Po Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 858−759−9930 Fax: 858−759−9938 Email: tmendoza@limandri.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Kathleen Sebelius in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Michelle Bennett U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue Nw Washington, DC 20001 202−305−8902 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 2 of 8

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hilda Solis in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Labor

represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Labor

represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Timothy Geithner in his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
WOMEN SPEAK FOR THEMSEVLES, BIOETHICS DEFENSE FUND, AND LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION

represented by Laurence D. Behr Barth Sullivan Behr 43 Court St, Suite 600 Buffalo, NY 14202 716−856−1300 Fax: 716−856−1494 Email: lbehr@barthbehr.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/15/2012
02/15/2012 02/15/2012 03/18/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed −yes,, filed by Priests for Life. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 summons Geithner, # 3 summons Labor, # 4 summons Solis, # 5 summons Treasury, # 6 summons Sebellius, # 7 summons HHS) (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
Summons Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
FILING FEE: $ 350, receipt number 4653040009 (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 02/16/2012)
2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Priests for Life. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Yerushalmi, David) (Entered: 03/18/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 3 of 8

04/05/2012 04/09/2012
04/09/2012 04/12/2012 04/12/2012 04/16/2012
04/16/2012
04/17/2012 04/17/2012 04/23/2012 04/23/2012 04/30/2012 05/14/2012 05/15/2012

3 Notice of MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Robert J. Muise, Esq. Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 0207−5407460. by Priests for Life. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Robert J. Muise, Esq., # 2 Proposed Order re Robert J. Muise, Esq.) (Yerushalmi, David) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Robert J. Muise. The admitted attorney Robert J. Muise is permitted to argue or try this particular case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate for Plaintiff Priests for Life. Mr. Muise is directed to register for Electronic Case Filing("ECF") then file a Notice of Appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 4/9/2012. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Muise on behalf of Priests for Life (notification declined or already on case) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Charles S. LiMandri Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 0207−5420319. by Priests for Life. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Charles S. LiMandri, # 2 Proposed Order) (Yerushalmi, David) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Teresa L. Mendoza Filing fee $ 25, receipt number 0207−5420320. by Priests for Life. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Teresa L. Mendoza, # 2 Proposed Order) (Yerushalmi, David) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The admitted attorney Charles S. LiMandri is permitted to argue or try this particular case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate for Plaintiff Priests for Life. Charles S. LiMandri is directed to register for Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") then file a Notice of Appearance and ensure that he receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 4/16/2012. (Yasunaga, Adrienne) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The admitted attorney Teresa L. Mendoza is permitted to argue or try this particular case in whole or in part as counsel or advocate for Plaintiff Priests for Life. Teresa L. Mendoza is directed to register for Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") then file a Notice of Appearance and ensure that she receives electronic notification of activity in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 4/16/2012. (Yasunaga, Adrienne) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles S. LiMandri on behalf of Priests for Life (aty to be noticed) (LiMandri, Charles) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Teresa L. Mendoza on behalf of Priests for Life (aty to be noticed) (Mendoza, Teresa) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Bennett on behalf of Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (aty to be noticed) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
10 MOTION for pre motion conference by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
11 RESPONSE to Motion re 10 MOTION for pre motion conference filed by Priests for Life. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Priests for Life. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 05/14/2012)
13 ORDER: Defendant's letter application dated 4/23/12 is GRANTED. A pre motion conference is scheduled for June 5, 2012 @ 11AM. There will be no formal order mailed to counsel. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other the date and time of this conference. If this date presents a conflict counsel shall

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 4 of 8

05/25/2012 05/29/2012
06/13/2012
07/17/2012
07/22/2012 08/01/2012 09/12/2012 09/12/2012 09/12/2012

first obtain the consent from all the parties to adjourn this conference, and then notify the Court by ECF letter application. Ordered by Senior Judge Frederic Block on 5/15/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2012)
14 Consent MOTION to Vacate 13 Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference,, And Reschedule Pre−Motion Conference by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Defendant's letter application dated 5/25/12, with the consent of plaintiff's counsel is GRANTED. The pre−motion conference scheduled for June 5, 2012 is adjourned to June 15, 2012 at 11:00 A.M. Plaintiff's counsel may still participate by telephone since they are all located in California. The Court will contact California counsel with respect to this conference. There will be no formal order mailed to counsel. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other the new date and time of this conference. Ordered by Senior Judge Frederic Block on 5/29/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 05/29/2012)
SCHEDULING ORDER: The pre−motion conference scheduled for June 15, 2012 is being adjourned by the Court to July 17, 2012 @ 11AM due to an ongoing civil jury trial. Plaintiff's counsel may still participate by telephone since they are all located in California. There will not be a formal order mailed to counsel. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other the new date and time of this conference. If this date presents a conflict counsel shall first obtain the consent from all the parties to adjourn this conference, and then ECF a letter application. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/13/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 06/13/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederic Block: David Yerushalmi, Esq.; Charles Limandri, Esq &Robert Muise, Esq. for the plaintiff by telephone and Michelle Bennett, Esq. &AUSA Franklin Amanat for the defendants, all present. Pre−motion conference held on 7/17/2012. Defendants anticipated motion to dismiss is discussed. There is a pending motion as to standing &ripeness in the SDNY and a motion is to be fully briefed and filed before J. Cogan sometime in September on similar cases. By July 27, 2012 counsel shall ECF file a letter with their agreed upon briefing schedule. Counsel shall serve and ECF file their motion according to J. Blocks motion rules.(Court Reporter: Not Reported.) (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
15 Letter re: parties' agreed−to briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/22/2012)
16 Letter to opposing counsel serving the government's motion to dismiss by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 8/2/2012 to add brief description of document (Chee, Alvin). (Entered: 08/01/2012)
17 Letter to Judge Block enclosing courtesy copies of defendants' fully briefed motion to dismiss by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 9/13/2012 to add description of document. (Chee, Alvin). (Entered: 09/12/2012)
18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
19 MEMORANDUM in Support re 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/12/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 5 of 8

09/12/2012 09/12/2012 09/12/2012
10/19/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/09/2012 11/15/2012
11/19/2012 11/20/2012
11/26/2012
11/27/2012 11/30/2012
12/07/2012 12/11/2012

20 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Priests for Life. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
21 Letter to Judge Frederic Block requesting oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss by Priests for Life (Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 9/13/2012 to add description of document (Chee, Alvin). (Entered: 09/12/2012)
22 REPLY in Support re 18 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
23 Letter to opposing counsel serving Plaintiff's motion for a TRO / preliminary injunction by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction by Priests for Life. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction filed by Priests for Life. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
26 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction filed by All Defendants. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
27 REPLY in Support re 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction filed by Priests for Life. (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
28 Letter to Judge Block enclosing courtesy copies of Plaintiff's fully briefed motion for a TRO / Preliminary Injunction by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
29 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief by WOMEN SPEAK FOR THEMSEVLES, BIOETHICS DEFENSE FUND, AND LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief) (Behr, Laurence) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
30 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
31 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Hobby Lobby Opinion) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
32 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Catholic Diocese of Nashville Opinion) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
33 Letter re: Response to Defendants' Notices of Supplemental Authority by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
34 Letter re: Supplemental Authority−−Eighth Circuit Order Granting Stay in O'Brien v. U.S. Dep't of Health &Human Servs. by Priests for Life (Attachments: # 1 Eighth Circuit Order Granting Stay in O'Brien v U.S. Dep't of Health &Human Servs.) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
35 Letter re: Notice of Supplemental Authority: The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of NY v Sebelius (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2012) (Judge Cogan) by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court is scheduling oral argument for December 20, 2012 at 11:00A.M. as to all pending motions. There will be no formal notice mailed to counsel. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other the date and time of this oral argument. If this date presents any conflicts counsel

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 6 of 8

12/12/2012 12/12/2012 12/13/2012 12/18/2012 12/18/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12/19/2012 12/20/2012
12/20/2012

shall obtain the consent of all the parties and file a ECF letter at least 48 hours in advance of the oral argument. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/11/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
36 Letter re: Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 34) by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Zubik Opinion) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
37 Letter re: Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 35) by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
ELECTRONIC ORDER: WOMEN SPEAK FOR THEMSEVLES, BIOETHICS DEFENSE FUND, AND LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION motion 29 for leave to file an amicus brief is GRANTED. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/13/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 12/13/2012)
38 NOTICE by Priests for Life re 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction, 20 Memorandum in Opposition of Filing of Supplemental Declaration of Danielle Jones (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Danielle Jones with Exhibits A through D) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
39 Letter re: Response to Defendants' Supplemental Authority Letters (Doc Nos 36 &37) by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
40 Letter re: Notice of Supplemental Authority: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Order in Wheaton Coll. v. Sebelius by Priests for Life (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Order in Wheaton Coll v Sebelius) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
41 NOTICE by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury re 38 Notice(Other), (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gary M. Cohen) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
42 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit : Wheaton Decision (D.C. Cir.)) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederic Block: Robert Muise, Esq. for the plaintiff; Michelle Bennett, Esq. for defendant DOJ, all present. Oral argument held on 12/20/2012. Defendants motion to dismiss 18 and plaintiffs motion 24 for a TRO &preliminary injunction are discussed. The defendant needs more time to discuss the matter with the involved government agencies with respect to the issues involved in this case and the pending motions which have a January 2013 activation date. Counsel will discuss entering into a stipulation or certification as to plaintiffs injunctive relief and by 12/21/12 counsel shall ECF file a joint status report letter as to whether they can agree to any injunctive relief. If counsel can not agree they will appear again on December 24, 2012 @ 11AM to continue the discussion on the issue of injunctive relief. The Court reserves decisions on both motions and further oral argument is scheduled for 4/11/13 @ 3PM. (Court Reporter: Allan Sherman (718) 613−2529) (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
SCHEDULING ORDER: The oral argument scheduled for December 24, 2012 is being adjourned by the Court to December 26, 2012 @ 11AM if counsel are unable to stipulated as to injunctive relief as discussed at the oral argument on December 20, 2012. There will not be a formal notice mailed to counsel. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other the new date and time of this oral argument. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/20/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 12/20/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 7 of 8

12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012
12/21/2012 01/08/2013 01/10/2013
01/25/2013 02/08/2013 02/19/2013 03/06/2013 03/14/2013 03/29/2013
04/04/2013 04/08/2013 04/09/2013 04/10/2013

43 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
44 Letter re: Status Report by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
ORDER: Electronically endorsing the stipulation 43 by the parties as to injunctive relief. The oral argument scheduled for December 26, 2012 @ 11AM is canceled since the parties were able to enter into a stipulation. Upon receipt of this email counsel shall confirm with each other that this oral argument is canceled. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 12/21/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
45 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Catholic Diocese of Biloxi Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff's motion 24 for TRO is moot at this time based on the stipulation 43 by the parties. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 1/8/2013. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
46 Letter re Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 University of Notre Dame Decision, # 2 Catholic Diocese of Peoria Decision, # 3 Colorado Christian University Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
47 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
48 Letter re Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Diocese of Fort Worth Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
49 Letter re: Supplemental Authorities by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Bishop Conlon Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/19/2013)
50 Letter re: Supplemental Authorities by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
51 Letter re: Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' "Supplemental Authority" Letters by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
52 Letter re: Plaintiff's March 14, 2013 Letter and re: Supplemental Authorities by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Wenski Decision, # 2 Exhibit − EWTN Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
58 Letter from Joan Coleman expressing opposition to the proposed "accommodation" to the HHS mandate. (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
53 Letter re: Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Letter of March 29, 2013 [Doc. No. 52] by Priests for Life (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Roman Catholic Diocese of Ft. Worth v Sebelius) (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 04/08/2013)
54 Letter re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
55 Letter re: Pl.'s April 8 letter (Dkt. No. 53) and re: Supplemental Authority by Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Criswell College

Case: 1:12-cv-753 As of: 04/24/2014 11:36 AM EDT 8 of 8

04/11/2013
04/12/2013 04/12/2013 04/15/2013

Decision) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Frederic Block: Robert Muse, Esq. for the plaintiff and Michelle Bennett, Esq. for the defendants, all present. Oral argument held on 4/11/2013. The plaintiff motion 24 for a preliminary injunction and the defendants motion 18 to dismiss the complaint are discussed further. The Court will issue a written decision shortly.(Court Reporter: Marsha Diamond (718) 613−2489) (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
56 MEMORANDUM &ORDER: The defendants motion 18 to dismiss is granted, Priests for Lifes motion 24 is denied for lack of jurisdiction, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/12/2013. (Innelli, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
57 Letter re: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss by Priests for Life (Muise, Robert) (Entered: 04/12/2013)
59 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: Ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted; that Plaintiff's motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction; and that the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Clerk of Court on 4/15/2013. (Chee, Alvin) (Entered: 04/15/2013)