Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIS & WILLIS PLC (also known as “WILLIS LAW”) 491 West South Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-4620
MICHAEL J. WILLIS, Owner of Willis & Willis PLC 491 West South Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-4620

COMPLAINT

SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, Owner of Willis &
Willis PLC 491 West South Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-4620

Plaintiffs,

-v.-

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201

JACK LEW, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220

SETH D. HARRIS, in his official capacity as the Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210

1

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 40
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210
Defendant.
Now come Plaintiffs Willis & Willis PLC also known as Willis Law (hereinafter “Willis Law”) and Michael J. Willis and Shaun Patrick Willis (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, and bring this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, and in support thereof state the following upon information and belief:
NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson, United States Office of the President, to the Soc’y of the Methodist Episcopal Church at New London, Conn. (Feb. 4, 1809) cited in People v. Dejonge, 442 Mich. 266, 278 (1993) (emphasis added). 2. This is a challenge to regulations ostensibly issued under the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Pub. L. 111-148, March 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119) and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” (Pub. L. 111-152, March 30, 2010, 124 Stat. 1029) (collectively known and hereinafter referred to as the “Affordable Care Act”) that force individuals to violate their deepest held religious beliefs.
2

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 3 of 40
3. One of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act mandates that health plans “provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration” and directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services to determine what would constitute “preventative care” under the mandate. 42 U.S.C § 300gg–13(a)(4).
4. Without notice of rulemaking or opportunity for public comment, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Labor, and the United States Department of Treasury adopted the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) recommendations in full and promulgated an interim final rule (“the Mandate”), which requires that all “group health plan[s] and . . . health insurance issuer[s] offering group or individual health insurance coverage” provide all FDA-approved contraceptive methods and procedures. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (published Aug. 3, 2011); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130.
5. The Mandate requires all insurance issuers (e.g. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan) to provide abortion and abortifacients in all of its insurance plans, group and individual.
6. Health Resources and Services Administration also issued guidelines adopting the IOM recommendations. (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
7. Under the IOM guidelines, the Mandate requires all insurance insurers to provide abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “ella” come within the Mandate’s and Health Resources and Services Administration’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.
3

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 4 of 40
8. The Mandate forces employers and individuals to violate their religious beliefs because it requires employers and individuals to pay for insurance from insurance issuers which fund and directly provide for drugs, devices, and services which violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
9. Since under the Mandate all insurance issuers must provide what the United States Department of Health and Human Services has deemed “preventative care,” employers and individuals are stripped of any choice between insurance issuers or insurance plans to avoid violating their religious beliefs.
10. The United States Department of Health and Human Services in an unprecedented despoiling of religious rights forces religious employers and individuals, who believe that funding and providing for abortion and abortifacients is wrong, to participate in acts that violate their beliefs and their conscience—and are forced out of the health insurance market in its entirety in order to comply with their religious beliefs.
11. Plaintiffs seek a Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction, enjoining Defendants from implementing and enforcing provisions of the regulations promulgated under the Affordable Care Act, specifically the Mandate. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights to the free 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.
12. Plaintiffs also seek a Declaratory Judgment that the regulations promulgated under the Affordable Care Act, specifically the Mandate, violate Plaintiffs’ rights to the free 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.
4

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 5 of 40
13. The Affordable Care Act’s abortion and abortifacient mandate violates the rights of Plaintiffs Willis Law and its owners, Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis.
14. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis are the only members of Plaintiff Willis Law, and they manage the firm.
15. Plaintiffs employ 15 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee and are forced under the Mandate to conduct business in a manner that violates their religious faith by providing and funding abortion and abortifacients, which violates deeply held religious beliefs.
16. Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate not only their own rights, but also to protect the rights of all Americans who care about our Constitutional guarantees of free exercise of religion and their freedom of speech, as well as the protection of innocent human life.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. 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. 18. Plaintiffs’ 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court. 19. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because this is the judicial district in which Defendants reside and the substantial part of the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.
PLAINTIFFS 20. Plaintiff Willis Law is organized as a professional limited liability company under the laws of the State of Michigan.
5

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 6 of 40
21. Plaintiff Willis Law is registered at 491 W. South St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007. 22. Plaintiff Willis Law is treated as a partnership for income tax purposes. 23. Plaintiff Willis Law is a legal services firm, formed by a mission of Christian service. 24. Willis Law and its founders, Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis, dedicate their practice to God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the memory of the founders’ fallen brother, Marine Corporal Christopher Kelly Willis. 25. In acting out their Christian faith, Willis Law formed and operates the Christian Legal Aid of Southwest Michigan, a Michigan nonprofit corporation which provides pro bono legal services to homeless persons at the Kalamazoo Gospel Mission, a clinic in which Willis Law attorneys participate in furtherance of its published goal that all of its attorneys “tithe” at least 10% of their time each year to pro bono, civic or community services. 26. Willis Law is listed in the Michigan Bar’s Pro Bono Circle of Excellence, and Michael J. Willis is the recipient of the Florida Bar’s President Pro Bono Service Award for the out-of-state circuit (2009). 27. Willis Law operates the Corporal Christopher Kelly Willis Foundation at its business site, providing its staff, most of its board, and its additional resources to fulfill the Foundation’s mission to provide Great Rewards for Great Warriors via its campaign to provide college scholarships to children whose United States military parent has been killed or permanently disabled in a combat zone. 28. Corporal Christopher Kelly Willis, Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis’ brother, served in the United State Marine Corp on the front lines, fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
6

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 7 of 40
29. The Corporal Christopher Kelly Willis Foundation, founded by Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis, honors the brave individuals of our armed forces who fight for our country, our constitution, and our religious freedom. The foundation reminds children that their parents, who gave their lives in battle defending the freedoms of our country, are American heroes that did not die in vain.
30. Willis Law has annually been selected to the list of one of West Michigan’s 101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For by the Michigan Business and Professional Association, and in 2009 it was selected by Michigan Lawyer’s Weekly as a 21st Century Innovator for its value-based compensation system.
31. Plaintiff Willis Law employs 15 full-time employees. 32. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis, the owners and sole managers of Plaintiff Willis Law, are individuals and citizens of the State of Michigan and the United States. 33. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis both own fifty-percent of Plaintiff Willis Law. There are no other owners or members. 34. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis retain full control over Plaintiff Willis Law and make all of the decisions for the operation and direction of Plaintiff Willis Law. 35. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis are Pro-life. 36. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis devote a significant portion of their lives to Christian philanthropic causes, including board services at a Catholic college, a Christian school association, a Catholic grade school and a Christian ministry. 37. Plaintiff Michael J. Willis is a Catholic Christian and follows the teachings of the Catholic faith as defined by the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the Catholic Church.
7

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 8 of 40
38. Plaintiff Shaun Patrick Willis is a Protestant Christian and follows the teachings of the Christian faith.
39. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis are guided by their religious beliefs. 40. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis hold religious beliefs that prevent them from participating in, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion and abortifacients. 41. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis follow the tenets of the Christian faith in their business practices. 42. Plaintiff Willis Law directly funds and supports the following faith based organizations: Kalamazoo Right to Life, Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center, Kalamazoo Gospel Mission, Youth for Christ, Young Life Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo Christian School Association, Holy Cross College, Faith Christian Church Campus Ministry, Jericho Foundation, Kalamazoo Loaves n Fishes, Vineyard Outreach Ministry, Catholic Family Services, Tree of Life School, Heritage Christian Academy, Gracespring Church, New Community Church, Bethany Christian Services, Allentown Rescue Mission, Vineyard Academy, and Christian Legal Aid of Southwest Michigan. 43. Kalamazoo Right to Life is a nonpartisan, nonsectarian, nonprofit organization of diverse and caring people united to protect the precious gift of human life from fertilization to natural death. Plaintiff Willis Law’s donations to Kalamazoo Right to Life support the sanctity of life from the moment of conception and promote pro-life education and legislation. 44. Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center provides information regarding alternatives to abortion and emergency contraception. The center never advises, provides, or refers for abortion or abortifacients.
8

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 9 of 40
45. The mission of Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center is to promote the value of human life by serving the unborn and their families through the love of Jesus Christ. Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center is committed to providing their client with complete and accurate information about prenatal development, abortion, abstinence, and the sanctity of human life. Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center is also committed to helping women carry their pregnancy to term by providing physical, emotional, and spiritual support and assistance. These resources help women face the future with hope and plan constructively for themselves and their babies.
46. Alternatives Pregnancy Care Center is an outreach ministry of the church and is committed to presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ to women seeking assistance with unplanned pregnancies, as He is the only True answer to each of our needs.
47. Plaintiff Willis Law also directly funds and supports the following charitable organizations: Corporal Christopher Kelly Willis Foundation, Wounded Warrior Project, Sea to Sea Cycling to End Poverty, Greg Jennings Foundation, Junior Achievement, Ministry with Community, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Make a Wish, Pretty Lake Vacation Camp, Cuff and Ladder Fund, Hospice Care, Operation Gratitude, Habitat for Humanity, Toys for Tots, Community Homeworks Kalamazoo, Wright for Kids Foundation, Alamo Township Patriots Foundation, Hospital Hospitality House, India Rural Evangelical Fellowship, and United Service Organization.
48. Prior to the issuance of the Mandate, Plaintiffs engineered an insurance policy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan which specifically excluded contraception, abortion and abortifacients, and exempted Plaintiffs from paying, contributing, or supporting contraception and abortion for others.
9

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 10 of 40
49. Plaintiffs obtained these exclusions due to their deeply held religious beliefs. 50. Before issuance of the Mandate, Plaintiffs’ employees received insurance under this engineered insurance policy with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan which specifically excluded contraception, abortion, and abortifacients, and exempted Plaintiffs from paying, contributing, or supporting contraception and abortion for others. 51. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis are the final decision makers when it comes to setting all policies governing the conduct of all phases of business of Willis Law. 52. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and their company Plaintiff Willis Law ensured that their insurance policy contained these exclusions to reflect their deeply held religious beliefs. 53. Based on the teachings of the Christian faith and their deeply held religious beliefs, Plaintiffs do not believe that abortion is properly understood to constitute medicine, health care, or a means of providing for the well being of persons. Indeed, Plaintiffs believe abortion to involve gravely immoral practices, specifically the intentional destruction of innocent human life.
DEFENDANTS 54. Defendants are appointed officials of the United States government and United States governmental agencies responsible for issuing the Mandate. 55. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). In this capacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of HHS. Defendant Sebelius is sued in her official capacity only.
10

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 11 of 40
56. Defendant HHS is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
57. Defendant Hilda Solis is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. In this capacity, she holds responsibility for the operation and management of the United States Department of Labor. Defendant Solis is sued in her official capacity only.
58. Defendant United States Department of Labor is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
59. Defendant Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury. In this capacity, he holds responsibility for the operation and management of the United States Department of Treasury. Defendant Geithner is sued in his official capacity only.
60. Defendant United States Department of Treasury is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the regulation which is the subject of this lawsuit.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiffs’ Religious Beliefs
61. Plaintiffs hold and actively profess religious beliefs in accordance with the traditional Christian teachings on the sanctity of life. Plaintiffs believe that each human being bears the image and likeness of God, and therefore that all human life is sacred and precious, from the moment of conception. Plaintiffs therefore believe that abortion ends a human life and is a grave sin.
62. Furthermore, Plaintiffs subscribe to or agree with Catholic teaching about the proper nature and aims of health care and medical treatment. For instance, Plaintiffs believe, in
11

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 12 of 40
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. Recently, several leaders within the Catholic Church and Protestant churches have publicly spoken out about how the Mandate is a direct violation of Catholic Faith.
64. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote, “Since January 20 [2012], when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother bishops on their recent ad limina visit: ‘Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.’ . . . We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans.” (http://www.usccb.org., March 2, 2012).
65. Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the Archbishop of Philadelphia, has expressed that the Affordable Care Act and the Mandate seek “to coerce Catholic employers, private and corporate, to violate their religious convictions . . . [t]he HHS mandate, including its latest variant, is belligerent, unnecessary, and deeply offensive to the content of Catholic belief . . . The HHS mandate needs to be rescinded. In reality, no similarly aggressive attack on religious freedom in our country has occurred in recent memory . . . [t]he HHS mandate is bad law; and not merely bad, but dangerous and insulting. It needs to be withdrawn—now.” (http://theamerican-catholic.com/2012/02/14/archbishop-chaput-hhs-mandate-dangerous-and-insulting/, Feb. 14, 2012).
12

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 13 of 40
66. Several Protestant leaders have also described how the mandate violates the Protestant faith. For example, Michael Milton, chancellor and CEO-elect of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, N.C., one of America’s largest Protestant seminaries, declared, “This is not a Catholic issue only. It is not a contraception issue. It is a religiousliberty issue. It is an American issue.” (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/religious-leadersof-other-denominations-and-faiths-weigh-in-on-hhs-mandate, last visited July 1, 2013). Plaintiffs Willis Law and Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis, Owners of Willis Law
67. Plaintiff Willis Law is a for-profit company. 68. Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law share a common mission of conducting their business operations with integrity and in compliance with the teachings, mission, and values of the Christian faith. 69. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law purchase group insurance through insurance issuer Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan and provide this insurance to their employees. 70. Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law strive to provide their employees with employee health coverage superior to coverage generally available in the Michigan market in order to be a competitive employer. 71. Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law specifically designed a health insurance plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan to exclude contraception, abortion, and abortifacients in line with the religious beliefs of the Christian faith. 72. Moreover, as a part of his religious commitment to the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, Plaintiff Michael Willis invests his personal retirement funds only in stocks and mutual funds that avoid any funding for or industry in the abortion practice.
13

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 14 of 40
73. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law cannot provide, fund, or participate in health care insurance which covers abortion or abortifacients, or related education and counseling, without violating their deeply held religious beliefs.
74. Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis and Plaintiff Willis Law cannot provide information or guidance to their employees regarding abortion, abortifacients or related education and counseling, without violating their deeply held religious beliefs.
75. With full knowledge of these aforementioned beliefs, Defendants issued an administrative rule (“the Mandate”) that runs roughshod over Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans.
76. The Mandate not only forces Plaintiffs to finance abortion, and related education and counseling as health care, but also subverts the expression of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing Plaintiffs to fund, promote, and assist others to acquire services which Plaintiffs believe involve gravely immoral practices, including the destruction of innocent human life.
77. The Mandate unconstitutionally coerces Plaintiffs to violate their deeply-held religious beliefs under threat of directly violating their consciences, in addition to any imposed fines and penalties. The Mandate also forces Plaintiffs to fund government-dictated speech that is directly at odds with their own speech and religious beliefs. Being entirely forced out of the insurance market in order to ensure the privilege of practicing one’s religion or controlling one’s own speech substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious liberty and freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
14

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 15 of 40
78. The Mandate strips the Plaintiffs of any choice to select an insurance plan that does not cover and finance abortion and abortifacients, as the Mandate requires that all insurance issuers provide this coverage.
79. Plaintiffs’ plan is not considered “grandfathered” and will be subject to the provisions of the Mandate.
80. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan deemed that due to the Mandate, Plaintiffs are no longer allowed to exclude contraception, abortion and abortifacients from their insurance plans—and are now being forced to provide and pay for these services which violate their religious beliefs.
81. Plaintiffs intend to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith.
82. Complying with the Mandate requires a direct violation of the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs because it would require Plaintiffs to pay for and assist others in paying for or obtaining abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “ella” come within the Mandate’s and Health Resources and Services Administration’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.
83. Defendants’ refusal to accommodate the conscience of the Plaintiffs, and of other Americans who share the Plaintiffs’ religious views, is highly selective. Numerous exemptions exist in the Affordable Care Act which appear arbitrary and were granted to employers who purchase group insurance. This evidences that Defendants do not mandate that all insurance plans need to cover “preventative services” (e.g. the thousands of waivers from the Affordable
15

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 16 of 40
Care Act issued by Defendants for group insurance based upon the commercial convenience of large corporations, the age of the insurance plan, or the size of the employer).
84. Despite granting waivers upon a seemingly arbitrary basis, no exemption exists for an employer or individual whose religious conscience instructs him that certain mandated services are unethical, immoral, and volatile to one’s religious beliefs. Defendants’ plan fails to give the same level of weight or accommodation to the exercise of one’s fundamental First Amendment freedoms that it assigns to the yearly earnings of a corporation.
85. The Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and civil rights statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
86. The Defendants’ actions also violate Plaintiffs’ right to the freedom of speech, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
87. Furthermore, the Mandate is also illegal because it was imposed by Defendants without prior notice or sufficient time for public comment, and otherwise violates the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.
88. Had Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, or the beliefs of the millions of other Americans who share Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs been obscure or unknown, the Defendants’ actions might have been an accident. But because the Defendants acted with full knowledge of those beliefs, and because they arbitrarily exempt some plans for a wide range of reasons other than religious conviction, the Mandate can be interpreted as nothing other than a deliberate attack by the Defendants on Christianity, the religious beliefs held by Plaintiffs and the similar religious beliefs held by millions of other Americans. The Defendants have, in sum, intentionally used government power to force individuals to believe in, support, and endorse the mandated services
16

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 17 of 40
manifestly contrary to their own religious convictions, and then to act on that coerced belief, support, or endorsement. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to protect against this attack. The Affordable Care Act
89. In March 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Pub. L. 111-148, March 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119) and the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act” (Pub. L. 111-152, March 30, 2010, 124 Stat. 1029) (referred to in this complaint as the “Affordable Care Act”).
90. The Affordable Care Act regulates the national health insurance market by directly regulating “group health plans” and “health insurance issuers.”
91. The Affordable Care Act does not apply equally to all insurers. 92. The Affordable Care Act does not apply equally to all individuals. 93. Plaintiff Willis Law employs 15 full-time employees. 94. Plaintiff Willis Law constitutes a “single employer” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act as defined at 42 U.S.C. § 18024(b)(4)(A). 95. Plaintiff Willis Law, as well as Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis as the owner and director of Willis Law must provide federal government-approved health insurance under the Affordable Care Act or provide no health insurance at all to its employees. 96. Employers with fewer than 50 employees who purchase insurance for their employees from health insurance issuers are subject to the Affordable Care Act. 42 USC § 300GG-13 (a)(1),(4). 97. Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act do not apply equally to members of certain religious groups. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) (individual mandate
17

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 18 of 40
does not apply to members of “recognized religious sect or division” that conscientiously objects to acceptance of public or private insurance funds); 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii) (individual mandate does not apply to members of “health care sharing ministry” that meets certain criteria).
98. Plaintiffs do not qualify for an individual exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii) as Plaintiffs do not object to acceptance of public or private insurance funds in their totality and currently employ health insurance benefits that, prior to the Mandate, excluded contraceptives, abortion and abortifacients.
99. The Affordable Care Act’s preventive care requirements do not apply to employers who provide so-called “grandfathered” health care plans.
100. Employers who follow HHS guidelines may continue to use grandfathered plans indefinitely.
101. Plaintiffs’ current insurance plans do not qualify as “grandfathered” health care plans, and are considered “non-grandfathered.”
102. Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption contained in 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(A) and (B).
103. There have been changes made to Plaintiffs’ plan after March 23, 2010, and participants have never been notified of a “grandfathered” status.
104. Furthermore Plaintiffs are not eligible for “grandfathered” status under the Affordable Care Act and are subject to the requirements of the Affordable Care Act and the Health and Human Services Mandate because: (1) the health care plan does not include the required “disclosure of grandfather status” statement; (2) Plaintiffs do 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
18

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 19 of 40
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.
105. Since the Plaintiffs do not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption, they are not permitted to take advantage of the “temporary safe-harbor” as set forth by the Defendants at 77 Fed. Register 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012).
106. Plaintiffs are thus subjected to the Mandate now and are confronted with choosing between complying with its requirements in violation of their religious beliefs or violating federal law.
107. Plaintiff Willis Law and Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis must choose between complying with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act in violation of their religious beliefs by providing insurance that mandates abortions or terminating its insurance plan, which would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically.
108. Plaintiffs are collectively confronted with complying with the requirements of the Affordable Care Act in violation of their religious beliefs or removing themselves and employees from the health insurance market in its entirety—endangering the health and economic stability of their employees and forcing Plaintiff Willis Law to be non-competitive as employers in a market where other, non-Christian employers will be able to provide insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act without violating their religious beliefs.
109. The Affordable Care Act is not generally applicable because it provides for numerous exemptions from its rules.
110. The Affordable Care Act is not neutral because some groups, both secular and religious, enjoy exemptions from the law, while certain religious groups do not. Some groups,
19

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 20 of 40
both secular and religious, have received waivers from complying with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while others—such as the Plaintiffs—have not.
111. The Affordable Care Act creates a system of individualized exemptions. 112. The United States Department of Health and Human Services has the authority under the Affordable Care Act to grant compliance waivers (“HHS waivers”) to employers and other health insurance plan issuers. 113. HHS waivers release employers and other plan issuers from complying with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 114. HHS decides whether to grant waivers based on individualized waiver requests from particular employers and other health insurance plan issuers. 115. Upon information and belief, more than a thousand HHS waivers have been granted. The “Preventive Care” Mandate 116. A provision of the Affordable Care Act mandates that health plans “provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration” and directs the Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services to determine what would constitute “preventative care” under the mandate. 42 U.S.C § 300gg–13(a)(4). 117. On July 19, 2010, HHS, along with the United States Department of Treasury and the United States Department of Labor, published an interim final rule under the Affordable Care Act. 75 Fed. Reg. 41726 (2010). The interim final rule required providers of group health insurance to cover preventive care for women as provided in guidelines to be published by the Health Resources and Services Administration at a later date. 75 Fed. Reg. 41759 (2010).
20

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 21 of 40
118. On February 15, 2012, the United States Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a mandate that group health plans include coverage for all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods and procedures, patient education, and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (hereafter, “the Mandate”). See 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv), as confirmed at 77 Fed. Register 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), adopting and quoting Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Guidelines, (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
119. The Mandate was enacted pursuant to statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by the Health Care and Education Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (ACA). 77 Fed. Reg. 31, 8725 (“Affordable Care Act”).
120. In its ruling, HHS included all FDA-approved contraceptives under the banner of preventive services, including contraception, abortion, and abortifacients such as the “morningafter pill,” “Plan B,” and “ella,” a close cousin of the abortion pill RU-486. (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
121. The Mandate’s reach seeks to control the decisions of employers, individuals and also the decisions of all insurance issuers (i.e. “Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan,” etc.). 42 USC § 300gg-13 (a)(1),(4). (“A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force; . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not
21

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 22 of 40
described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.”).
122. All insurance issuers are mandated to include contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortifacients such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “ella” in all of its group and individual plans, not specifically exempted, beginning as of August 1, 2012 and effective on the anniversary of the employer’s plan year.
123. Individuals and employers, regardless of the number of employees they employ, are forced to select an insurance plan which includes what HHS deemed “preventative care.”
124. All individuals and employers are now stripped of their choice not to pay for the “preventative care,” regardless of whether paying for such “services” violates one’s conscience or deeply held religious beliefs.
125. Health insurance issuers include insurance companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, which is the insurance issuer used by Plaintiffs.
126. The Mandate reaches even further than the Affordable Care Act to eliminate all employers and individuals from selecting a health insurance plan in which the insurance issuers do not automatically provide contraception, abortion, and abortifacients.
127. Prior to promulgating the Mandate, HHS accepted public comments to the 2010 interim final regulations from July 19, 2010 to 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, abortion, and abortifacients.
128. HHS directed a private health policy organization, the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”), to suggest a list of recommended guidelines describing which drugs, procedures, and
22

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 23 of 40

services should be covered by all health plans as preventative care for women.

(http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).

129. In developing its guidelines, IOM invited a select number of groups to make

presentations on the preventive care that should be mandated by all health plans. These were the

Guttmacher Institute, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), John

Santelli, the National Women’s Law Center, National Women’s Health Network, Planned

Parenthood

Federation

of

America

and

Sara

Rosenbaum.

(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13181&PAGE=217).

130. No religious groups or other groups that oppose government-mandated coverage

of contraception, abortion, and related education and counseling were among the invited

presenters.

131. One year after the first interim final rule was published, on July 19, 2011, the

IOM published its recommendations. It recommended that the preventative services include “All

Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods.” (Institute of Medicine,

Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (July 19, 2011)).

132. Preventative services therefore include FDA-approved contraceptive methods

such as birth-control pills; prescription contraceptive devices, including IUDs; Plan B, also

known as the “morning-after pill”; and ulipristal, also known as “ella” or the “week-after pill”;

and other drugs, devices, and procedures.

133. 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

23

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 24 of 40
constitute an “abortion” as that term is used in federal law and Catholic teaching. Consequently, Plan B and “ella” are abortifacients.
134. Thirteen days later, on August 1, 2011, without notice of rulemaking or opportunity for public comment, HHS, the United States Department of Labor, and the United States Department of Treasury adopted the IOM recommendations in full and promulgated an interim final rule (“the Mandate”), which requires that all “group health plan[s] and . . . health insurance issuer[s] offering group or individual health insurance coverage” provide all FDAapproved contraceptive methods and procedures. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621 (published Aug. 3, 2011); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130. Health Resources and Services Administration issued guidelines adopting the IOM recommendations. (http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines).
135. The Mandate also requires group health care plans and insurance issuers to provide education and counseling for all women beneficiaries with reproductive capacity.
136. The Mandate went into effect immediately as an “interim final rule.” 137. HHS did not take into account the concerns of religious organizations in the comments submitted before the Mandate was issued. 138. Instead the Mandate was unresponsive to the concerns stated in the comments submitted by religious organizations. 139. When it issued the Mandate, HHS requested comments from the public by September 30th and indicated that comments would be available online. 140. Upon information and belief, over 100,000 comments were submitted against the Mandate. 141. On October 5, 2011, six days after the comment period ended, Defendant Sebelius gave a speech at a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America. She told the assembled crowd
24

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 25 of 40
that “we are in a war.” She did not state whom she and NARAL Pro-Choice America were warring against.
142. During a Congressional hearing on April 26, 2012, Defendant Sebelius admitted that she is totally unfamiliar with the United States Supreme Court religious freedom cases.
143. Defendant Sebelius showed little concern for the constitutional issues involved in promulgating the Mandate. At the aforementioned congressional hearing, she admitted that prior to issuing the Mandate she did not review any written materials or any sort of legal memo from her general counsel discussing the effects of the Mandate on religious freedom.
144. The Mandate fails to take into account the statutory and constitutional conscience rights of religious business owners and for profit companies that exercise business practices in compliance with certain faith practices, such as Plaintiff Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis’s company Plaintiff Willis Law, a subject of comment.
145. The Mandate requires that Plaintiffs assist, provide, or fund coverage for abortion, abortifacients, and related education and counseling against its conscience in a manner that is contrary to law.
146. The Mandate constitutes government-imposed pressure and coercion on Plaintiffs to change or violate their religious beliefs.
147. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs, as individuals and as employers, to substantial fines.
148. As an employer with less than 50 full-time employees if Plaintiffs provide insurance which conforms to their religious beliefs but not to the mandate, Plaintiffs face penalties of $100 a day per employee.
25

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 26 of 40
149. Under the United States Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(a), there is a tax imposed on any failure of a group plan to meet the requirements of Chapter 100 (relating to group plan requirements). Under 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(b), the amount of the tax is $100 for each day in the non-compliance period with respect to each individual to whom such failure relates. This tax penalty would generally be: 15 employees x 365 days per year x $100 each day = $547,500 per year tax.
150. The Mandate imposes a burden on Plaintiffs’ employee recruitment and retention efforts by creating uncertainty as to whether Plaintiffs will continue to offer health insurance.
151. The Mandate places Plaintiffs at a competitive disadvantage in their efforts to recruit and retain employees.
152. Furthermore, as Christians, their religious beliefs and the principle of stewardship require that Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis care for their employees by providing insurance coverage for them and their families.
153. The Mandate forces Plaintiffs to provide, fund, or approve and assist its employees and members in purchasing abortifacient drugs in violation of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs that doing so is gravely immoral and equivalent to assisting another to destroy innocent human life.
154. Plaintiffs have a sincere religious objection to providing coverage for emergency contraceptive drugs such as Plan B and “ella” since they believe those drugs could prevent a human embryo, which they understand to include a fertilized egg before it implants in the uterus, from implanting in the wall of the uterus, causing the death of a person.
155. Plaintiffs consider the prevention by artificial means of the implantation of a human embryo to be an abortion.
26

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 27 of 40
156. Plaintiffs believe that Plan B and “ella” can cause the death of the embryo, which is a person.
157. Plan B can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus. 158. “Ella” can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus. 159. Plan B and “ella” can cause the death of the embryo. 160. The use of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus constitutes an “abortion” as that term is used in federal law. 161. The use of artificial means to cause the death of a human embryo constitutes an “abortion” as that term is used in federal law. 162. The Mandate forces Plaintiffs to provide emergency contraception, including Plan B and “ella,” free of charge, regardless of the ability of insured persons to obtain these drugs from other sources. 163. The Mandate forces Plaintiffs to fund education and counseling concerning abortion that directly conflicts with Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and teachings. 164. Plaintiffs could not cease in providing its employees with health insurance coverage without violating its religious duty to provide for the health and well-being of its employees and their families. Indeed, Willis Law’s most valuable staff employee, Pamela Goheen, was able to extend her life after being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer due Willis Law’s health plan (and Pam’s will to live), a battle which was sadly recently lost, but only after an extension of life well beyond medical opinions. Additionally, employees would be unable to attain similar coverage in the market as it now exists.
27

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 28 of 40
165. The Mandate forces Plaintiffs to choose between violating their religious beliefs, incurring substantial fines, or terminating their employee or individual health insurance coverage.
166. Providing counseling and education about abortion directly undermines and subverts the explicit messages and speech of Plaintiffs.
167. Group health plans and insurance issuers have been subject to the Mandate as of August 1, 2012.
168. Plaintiffs’ plan year begins on January 1 of each year, and has been subject to the Mandate as of January 1, 2013.
169. Plaintiffs have already had to devote significant institutional resources, including both staff time and funds, to determine how to respond to the Mandate, and Plaintiffs anticipate continuing to make such expenditures of time and money. The Narrow and Discretionary Religious Exemption and Exemption for Non-profit Corporations
170. The Mandate indicates that the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) “may” grant religious exemptions to certain religious employers. 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(A).
171. The Mandate allows HRSA to grant exemptions for “religious employers” who “meet [ ] all of the following criteria: (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization. (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(B).
28

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 29 of 40

172. The Mandate imposes no constraint on HRSA’s discretion to grant exemptions to

some, all, or none of the organizations meeting the Mandate’s definition of “religious

employers.”

173. HHS stated that it based the exemption on comments on the 2010 interim final

rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 46621.

174. Defendants also have made an accommodation for non-profit corporations who do

not fit within the narrow definition of a religious employer, but oppose providing insurance

coverage

for

contraceptives,

abortifacients,

and

abortion.

(http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-15866_PI.pdf, last visited July 9, 2013).

175. There is no exemption for a for-profit company.

176. Plaintiffs are subject to the Mandate despite the existence of exemptions to the

Mandate as none of the exemptions apply to Plaintiffs.

177. On January 20, 2012, Defendant Sebelius announced that there would be no

change to the religious exemption. She added that “[n]onprofit 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,” on the condition

that those employers certify they qualify for the extension. At the same time, however, Sebelius

announced that HHS “intend[s] to require employers that do not offer coverage of 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 Statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary

Kathleen Sebelius, (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html). To date,

29

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 30 of 40
Defendant HHS has not released any official rule implementing either the one-year extension or the additional forced-speech requirement that applies to either Plaintiff.
178. Plaintiffs are currently subject to the Mandate, despite the fact that Plaintiffs will violate the teachings of their religious beliefs and the teachings of their Christian faith by directly providing, funding, and/or allowing its members to engage in disseminating information and guidance about where to obtain abortion, or abortifacient services.
CLAIMS COUNT I Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Free Exercise Clause 179. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 180. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit it from providing coverage for abortifacients and abortion, or related education and counseling. Plaintiffs’ compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise. 181. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor the Mandate is neutral. 182. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor the Mandate is generally applicable. 183. Defendants have created categorical exemptions and individualized exemptions to the Mandate. 184. The Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest. 185. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ stated interests. 186. The Mandate creates government-imposed coercive pressure on Plaintiffs to change or violate their religious beliefs. 187. The Mandate chills Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
30

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 31 of 40
188. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial competitive disadvantages, in that it will no longer be permitted to offer health insurance.
189. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial fines for their religious exercise. 190. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to monetary and health risks as they will no longer be able to accept health insurance, nor be able to purchase or provide health care insurance without violating their religious beliefs. 191. The Mandate imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. 192. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest. 193. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate violate Plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 194. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT II Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Free Exercise Clause 195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 196. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing or providing coverage for abortifacients, abortion, or related education and counseling. Plaintiffs’ compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise. 197. Despite being informed in detail of these beliefs beforehand, Defendants designed the Mandate and the religious exemption to the Mandate in a way that made it impossible for Plaintiffs to comply with their religious beliefs.
31

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 32 of 40
198. Defendants promulgated both the Mandate and the religious exemption to the Mandate in order to suppress the religious exercise of Plaintiffs and others.
199. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate thus violate Plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
200. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT III Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Free Exercise Clause 201. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 202. By design, Defendants imposed the Mandate on some religious organizations or religious individuals but not on others, resulting in discrimination among religions. 203. The Mandate vests HRSA with unbridled discretion in deciding whether to allow exemptions to some, all, or no organizations meeting the definition of “religious employers.” 204. The Mandate vests HRSA with unbridled discretion in deciding whether to allow exemptions to some, all, or no religious individuals. 205. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate thus violate Plaintiffs’ rights secured to it by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 206. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
32

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 33 of 40
COUNT IV Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Establishment Clause 207. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 208. By design, defendants imposed the Mandate on some religious organizations but not on others, resulting in a selective burden on Plaintiffs. 209. Defendants also imposed the Mandate on some religious individuals and religious organizations but not on others, resulting in a selective burden on Plaintiffs. 210. The Mandate vests HRSA with unbridled discretion in deciding whether to allow exemptions to some, all, or no organizations meeting the definition of “religious employers.” 211. The Mandate also vests HRSA with unbridled discretion in deciding whether to allow exemptions to some, all, or no individuals. 212. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate therefore violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured to it by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 213. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT V Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of Speech 214. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 215. Plaintiffs profess, educate, lecture, and engage in outreach amongst the community that abortion, and abortifacients violate their religious beliefs.
33

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 34 of 40
216. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to provide or subsidize activities that Plaintiffs profess, educate, lecture, and engage in outreach amongst the community are violations of the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.
217. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to fund and to provide education and counseling related to abortion and abortifacients.
218. Defendants’ actions thus violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free from compelled speech as secured to it by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
219. The Mandate’s compelled speech requirement is not narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.
220. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT VI Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Expressive Association 221. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 222. Plaintiffs profess, educate, and engage in outreach amongst the community that abortion and abortifacients violate their religious beliefs. 223. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to subsidize activities that Plaintiffs profess, educate, and engage in outreach in the community are violations of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. 224. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to fund and to provide education and counseling related to abortion and abortifacients. 225. Defendants’ actions thus violate Plaintiffs’ right of expressive association as secured to it by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
34

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 35 of 40
226. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT VII Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Free Exercise Clause and Freedom of Speech 227. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 228. By stating that HRSA “may” grant an exemption to certain religious groups, the Mandate vests HRSA with unbridled discretion over which organizations or individuals can have its First Amendment interests accommodated. 229. The Mandate furthermore seems to have completely failed to address the constitutional and statutory implications of the Mandate on for-profit employers such as Plaintiff Willis Law and Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis. As such, Plaintiff Willis Law and Plaintiffs Michael and Shaun Patrick Willis are subject to the unbridled discretion of HRSA to determine whether such companies would be exempt or are wholly left without relief from the Mandate. 230. Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiffs’ right not to be subjected to a system of unbridled discretion when engaging in speech or when engaging in religious exercise, as secured to it by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 231. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT VIII Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 232. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
35

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 36 of 40
233. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit it from providing or purchasing coverage for abortion, abortifacients, or related education and counseling. Plaintiffs’ compliance with these beliefs is a religious exercise.
234. The Mandate creates government-imposed coercive pressure on Plaintiffs to change or violate their religious beliefs.
235. The Mandate chills Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. 236. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial fines for their religious exercise. 237. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial competitive disadvantages, in that it will no longer be permitted to offer or purchase health insurance. 238. The Mandate imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. 239. The Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest. 240. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest. 241. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ stated interests. 242. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate violate Plaintiffs’ rights secured to it by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. 243. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendants, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT IX Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 244. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 245. Defendants’ stated reasons that public comments were unnecessary, impractical, and opposed to the public interest are false and insufficient, and do not constitute “good cause.”
36

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 37 of 40
246. Without proper notice and opportunity for public comment, Defendants were unable to take into account the full implications of the regulations by completing a meaningful “consideration of the relevant matter presented.” Defendants did not consider or respond to the voluminous comments they received in opposition to the interim final rule.
247. Therefore, Defendants have taken agency action not in observance with procedures required by law, and Plaintiffs are entitled to relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
248. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT X Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 249. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 250. In promulgating the Mandate, Defendants failed to consider the constitutional and statutory implications of the mandate on Plaintiffs and similar organizations, companies, and individuals. 251. Defendants’ explanation for its decision not to exempt Plaintiffs and similar companies and religious individuals from the Mandate runs counter to the evidence submitted by religious organizations during the comment period. 252. Thus, Defendants’ issuance of the interim final rule was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because the rules fail to consider the full extent of their implications and they do not take into consideration the evidence against them. 253. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
37

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 38 of 40
COUNT XI Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 254. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 255. The Mandate is contrary to the provisions of the Weldon Amendment of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public Law 110 329, Div. A, Sec. 101, 122 Stat. 3574, 3575 (September 30, 2008). 256. The Weldon Amendment provides that “[n]one of the funds made available in this Act [making appropriations for Defendants United States Department of Labor and United States Department of Health and Human Services] may be made available to a Federal agency or program . . . if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” 257. The Mandate requires issuers, employers, and individuals, including Plaintiffs, to provide and purchase coverage of all Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptives. 258. Some FDA-approved contraceptives cause abortions. 259. As set forth above, the Mandate violates RFRA and the First Amendment. 260. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Mandate is contrary to existing law, and is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 261. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT XII Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 262. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs. 263. The Mandate is contrary to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
38

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 39 of 40
264. Section 1303(a)(1)(A)(i) 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.”
265. Section 1303 further states that it is “the issuer” of a plan that “shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage” of abortion services.
266. Under the Affordable Care Act, Defendants do not have the authority to decide whether a plan covers abortion; only the issuer does.
267. However, the Mandate requires all issuers, including Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ insurance issuer Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan, to provide coverage of all Federal Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.
268. Some FDA-approved contraceptives cause abortions. 269. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Mandate is contrary to existing law, and is in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 270. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court: a. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; b. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
39

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/24/13 Page 40 of 40
c. Declare that the Mandate was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;
d. Issue both a preliminary and a permanent injunction prohibiting and enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Mandate against Plaintiffs and other religious individuals, employers, and companies that object to funding and providing insurance coverage for abortion, abortifacients, and related education and counseling;
e. Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees; and f. Award such other and further relief as it deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted, THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER /s/ Erin Elizabeth Mersino Erin Elizabeth Mersino, Esq. (P70886) Richard Thompson, Esq. (P21410) 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive P.O. Box 393 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Tel (734) 827-2001 Fax (734) 930-7160 emersino@thomasmore.org Counsel for Plaintiffs
40

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 11 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIS LAW, et al. Plaintiff,
v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al.
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 13-01124 (CKK)

ORDER (August 23, 2013) Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings, ECF No. [7], and Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay and Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. [9], both motions are hereby GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are hereby enjoined until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.), from enforcing against Plaintiffs, their employee health plans, the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, and/or their insurers, the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide their employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity, “77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or any other enforcement actions for

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 11 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 2

noncompliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980 H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are stayed until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the Court of Appeals in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t. of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within fifteen (15) days after the mandate issues from the Court of Appeals in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t. of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.), the parties shall file a Joint Status Report informing the Court of how they plan to proceed in light of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
SO ORDERED.

August 23, 2013

/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 15 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WILLIS & WILLIS PLC, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 13-cv-1124 (CKK)

ORDER (October 27, 2014) In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), and upon the parties’ [14] Joint Motion for Entry of Injunction and Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are permanently enjoined from enforcing (1) those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require Plaintiff Willis & Willis PLC (hereinafter, “Willis Law”) to provide its employees with health coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), to which Plaintiffs object on religious grounds, e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv); and (2) any penalties, fines, or assessments for noncompliance with the coverage requirement described above in section (a)(1), including those found in 26 U.S.C. § 4980D and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d; and it is further

Case 1:13-cv-01124-CKK Document 15 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 2

ORDERED that Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are permanently enjoined from taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the coverage requirement described above in section (a)(1) against Plaintiff Willis Law, its employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or Willis Law’s health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to Willis Law’s health plan(s); and it is further
ORDERED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.; and it is further
ORDERED that all other claims against Defendants are DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Local Civ. R. 54.2, the Parties will meet and confer to reach agreement on attorneys’ fees and costs. The Parties will file a joint status report, including a recommendation for further proceedings, by no later than December 19, 2014. If there is no resolution of the attorneys’ fees and costs matter, Plaintiffs may file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs within thirty days of December 19, 2014, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54; and it is further ORDERED that this Injunction and Judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing herein prevents Plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes

This is a final, appealable Order.

____/s/________________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-1124 As of: 07/31/2016 09:17 PM EDT 1 of 4
CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−01124−CKK

WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC et al v. SEBELIUS et al Assigned to: Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/24/2013 Date Terminated: 10/27/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC also known as WILLIS LAW

represented by Erin Elizabeth Mersino THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER P.O. Box 393 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (734) 827−2001 Fax: (734) 930−7160 Email: emersino@thomasmore.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff MICHAEL J. WILLIS

represented by Erin Elizabeth Mersino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS

represented by Erin Elizabeth Mersino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant JACOB J. LEW
Defendant

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Room 7200 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−8902 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-1124 As of: 07/31/2016 09:17 PM EDT 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

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

Defendant SETH D. HARRIS

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

Defendant
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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

Date Filed 07/24/2013
07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013 07/24/2013
07/24/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013 08/20/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−3410326) filed by Willis and Willis PLC (also known as "Willis Law"), Shaun Patrick Willis, Michael J. Willis. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Summons for Kathleen Sebelius, # 3 Summons Summons for U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, # 4 Summons Summons for Jack Lew, # 5 Summons Summons for U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, # 6 Summons Summons for Seth D. Harris, # 7 Summons Summons for U.S. Dep't of Labor, # 8 Summons Summons for U.S. Attorney General, # 9 Summons Summons for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia)(Mersino, Erin) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Michael J. Willis, Shaun Patrick Willis, Willis and Willis PLC (also known as "Willis Law"). (Mersino, Erin) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
Case Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly. (zmd, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
3 ORDER Establishing Procedures for Filing for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly, signed on July 24, 2013. (SM) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
4 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS Issued (7) as to SETH D. HARRIS, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons 2nd, # 2 Summons 3rd, # 3 Summons 4th, # 4 Summons 5th, # 5 Summons 6th, # 6 Summons 7th, # 7 Notice of Consent, # 8 Consent Form)(zmd, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
5 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED (1) as to JACK LEW. (md, ) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
6 ENTERED IN ERROR.....CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by MICHAEL J. WILLIS, SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC Proof of Service for Service of Summons and Complaints. (Mersino, Erin) Modified on 8/21/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/20/2013)
7 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by MICHAEL J. WILLIS, SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Mersino, Erin). Added MOTION to Stay on 8/21/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/20/2013)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 8/14/13., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/14/2013. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 10/13/2013.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. SETH D. HARRIS served on 7/29/2013; JACK LEW served on 8/1/2013; KATHLEEN

Case: 1:13-cv-1124 As of: 07/31/2016 09:17 PM EDT 3 of 4

08/21/2013 08/21/2013
08/21/2013
08/23/2013 08/25/2014 08/25/2014
08/25/2014 09/24/2014 10/01/2014
10/01/2014 10/24/2014 10/27/2014

SEBELIUS served on 7/29/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES served on 7/29/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR served on 7/29/2013; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY served on 8/1/2013 (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 6 Certificate of Service was entered in error and was refiled as Docket Entry 8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
9 Unopposed MOTION to Stay and Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 7) by SETH D. HARRIS, JACK LEW, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
10 RESPONSE (Non−Opposition) re 7 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION to Stay filed by SETH D. HARRIS, JACK LEW, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (See Docket Entry 9 to view document). (znmw, ) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
11 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 7 Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings and Defendants' 9 Unopposed Motion to Stay and Notice of Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on August 23, 2013. (lcckk1) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
12 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by SETH D. HARRIS, JACK LEW, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report and in light of the parties' request, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by no later than SEPTEMBER 24, 2014, advising the Court as to how they plan to proceed. This matter shall remain STAYED until OCTOBER 9, 2014, in accordance with the terms of the Court's 11 Order entered on August 23, 2013. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on August 25, 2014. (NS) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/24/2014. (dot ) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
13 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by MICHAEL J. WILLIS, SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC. (Mersino, Erin) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 13 Joint Status Report and in light of the parties' request, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by no later than OCTOBER 24, 2014, advising the Court as to how they plan to proceed. This matter shall remain STAYED until NOVEMBER 9, 2014, in accordance with the terms of the Court's 11 Order entered on August 23, 2013. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 10/1/2014. (lcckk2) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/24/2014. (dot ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
14 Joint MOTION for Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction by MICHAEL J. WILLIS, SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Mersino, Erin) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
15 ORDER in light of the Parties' 14 Joint Motion for Entry of Injunction and Judgment entering PERMANENT INJUNCTION with respect to certain provisions of federal law; entering JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiffs with respect to their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim; DISMISSING all other claims against Defendants; and further ordering certain actions with respect to attorneys' fees and costs. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 10/27/2014. (lcckk2) (Entered: 10/27/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-1124 As of: 07/31/2016 09:17 PM EDT 4 of 4

10/31/2014 10/31/2014 12/17/2014

16 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 15 Order on Motion for Judgment, by SETH D. HARRIS, JACK LEW, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
17 ORDER GRANTING the parties' 16 Joint Motion to Amend Court's October 27, 2014 Order and AMENDING the Court's 15 Order of that date. The text of the October 27, 2014 15 Order is replaced in its entirety as specified by this order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 10/31/2014. (lcckk2) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
18 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by MICHAEL J. WILLIS, SHAUN PATRICK WILLIS, WILLIS AND WILLIS PLC. (Mersino, Erin) (Entered: 12/17/2014)