Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID 46
54000-76231 (JDB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

UNION UNIVERSITY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

No.

1:14-cv-01079

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, THOMAS PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant

s.

COMPLAINT

I. Introduction Union Univ ersity brings this action c hallenging on religious grounds the Patien t Protection and Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Uni on University’s employee healthcare plan inc lude access to certain c ontraceptives that function as abortifacients, or that destroy human life by preventing the implantat ion of the embryo in the uterine wall. These requirements interfere with Un ion University’s rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Rest oration Act. T he government cannot establish that the required em ployer-provided access to these contraceptives f urthers a compelling government interest. But even if the government were to establish a compelling interest Union Un iversity is still entitled to relief because the government
1

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID 47
54000-76231 (JDB)
cannot show that requiring Un ion Univers ity to provide this c overage is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest.
II. Parties 1. Union Un iversity is a private, four-year, coeducat ional, libera l arts-based university offering bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Founded in 1823, Union is the oldest institution affiliated with Southern Baptist life. 2. Union University’s core values in clude being a Christ-c entered institution. This means introducing men an d women t o an under standing and appreciation of God, His creation and grace, and humani ty’s place of privileg e and responsibility in God’s creation. 3. Union University’s core values extend beyond its students to its employees. 4. As part of recognizing humanit y’s place of privilege in God’s creation, Union University cannot provide or be part of facilitating access to abortifacients. 5. Based on its Christian-bas ed belief in the sanctity of life, Union University considers drugs and devices that prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall to be abortifacients. 6. Defendants are officials of the Unit ed States government and agencies of United States government that are responsible for implem enting the Affordable Care Act. 7. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is t he Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary Sebelius is responsible for operating and managing the Department of Health and Human Services.
2

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID 48
54000-76231 (JDB)

8. The Department of Health and Hum an Services is an executiv e agency of

the United States gov ernment and it is responsible for promulgating, administering, and

enforcing the Affordable Care Act and its various regulations.

9. Defendant Thomas Perez is the

Secretary of the United States

Department of Labor and he is responsible for operating and managing the Department

of Labor.

10. The Depar tment of Labor is an ex ecutive agency of the United States

government and it is responsible for prom ulgating, administering, and enforcing the

Affordable Care Act and its various regulations.

11. Defendant Jacob J. Lew is t he Se cretary of the Department of the

Treasury. Secretary Lew is responsible for operating and managing the Department of

the Treasury.

12. The Depar tment of the Treasury is an executive agency of the United

States gov ernment and is responsible for promulgating, administering, and enforcing

the Affordable Care Act and its various regulations.

III. Jurisdiction and venue

13. This Court has subject matter jurisd iction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1331 and

§ 1361. This action arises und er the Constitution and the la ws of the United States.

This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c).

14. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) venue is in this dist rict because Union University

maintains its principal place of business in th is district and a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.

3

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID 49
54000-76231 (JDB)
IV. Factual background 15. The Patient Protection and Affordabl e Car e Act requires group health plans and health insurers offering group or individual health ins urance coverage to include, among other things, women’s “pr eventive c are and sc reenings.” These must be provided without cost sharing. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). 16. Congress did not define “preventive care and screenings,” but left defining this phrase to the Health Resources and Serv ices Administration. HRSA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. HRSA then asked the Institute of Medicine to develop guidelines to help implement these requirements. 17. In drafting the guidelines, the Instit ute of Medicine invited several group s that are sympathetic to the government’s position to make presentations on the preventive care that the government should mandate. 18. But the IOM did not seek pr esentations from groups that oppos e government-mandated coverage of contraception, sterilizat ion, abortion, and related education and counseling. 19. The IOM recommended that prevent ative services include all FDAapproved contraceptive method s, sterilization proce dures, and patient ed ucation a nd counseling. 20. These F DA-approved contraceptive methods inc lude male a nd female condoms, diaphragm’s, sponges , cervical caps, s permicides, the pill, the mini-pill, the continuous-use pill, patches, vaginal ri ngs, progestin sh ots, implantable rod s, sterilization surgery for men and women, and sterilization implants for women.
4

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID 50
54000-76231 (JDB)
21. Four of the twenty a pproved m ethods include two types of intrauterine devices and emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and Ella.
22. Thirteen days after IOM publis hed its recommendations, HRSA adopted the recommendations. The Defendants is sued an amended interim rule on the sam e day. This rule reiterated the mandate and provided a narrow exemption for “religiou s employers.”
23. Although HHS acc epted comments unt il September 30, 2011, HHS’s fin al rule was not responsive to the comments of individuals and groups who opposed the mandate.
24. Nor does the government’s mandat e consider the statutory and constitutional limits on the gover nment’s ability to infringe on the free-exercise rights of institutions like Union University.
25. Union Univ ersity belie ves that drugs or medical devic es that prevent the implantation of the human embryo into the uterine wall cause the death of the embryo.
26. Plan B, Ella, and certain intrauteri ne devic es prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall. These drugs and devices are covered under the mandate.
27. Union University’s belief in the sanc tity of human life derives from its interpretation of Scripture.
28. Preventing the embryo from implant ing in the uteri ne wall causes the death of the embryo. Causing th e death of the embryo conflicts with Union University’s beliefs bas ed on Scripture. T herefore, Union University has religious-based objections to drugs and devices that kill the embryo and to education and counseling related to the use of these abortion-causing drugs and devices.
5

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID 51
54000-76231 (JDB)
29. The mandate requir es Union University to i gnore its religious-based objections and provide coverage for these items or at least facilitate the providing o f coverage for these items.
30. Union University’s op position to the government’s mandate to provide or facilitate providing these drugs or devices springs from its sincerely held religious beliefs that the mandate is contrary to Scripture. The mandate fo rces Union University t o choose between its sincerel y held religious belief s and the government-imposed adverse consequences of not adhering to the government’s mandate.
31. Union University opposes mandat ory counseling or education about abortion in general and mandator y counseling or education regarding the use of these drugs or devices. Union Univ ersity’s opposition to the c ounseling and education springs from its sincerely held religio us beliefs about the sanctity of human life and that life begins at conception. The mandate forces Un ion University to choose between its sincerely held religious beliefs and the go vernment-imposed adverse consequences of not adhering to the government’s mandate.
32. Union Un iversity’s d ecision to follo w its conscie nce rather than the government mandate, forces it to pay penalties to the government.
33. Union University’s health plan does not qualify fo r the grandfather exception. Because Union Univ ersity’s heal th plan do es not enj oy the grandfatheredplan exception, the university must provide t he coverage outlined above. This coverage must commence by May 1, 2014.
34. The government allows eligible organizations, such as Union University, to avoid the contraceptive requirement through a self-certification process. Under this
6

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID 52
54000-76231 (JDB)

process, the government requires Union Univ ersity to file paper work with its insurer

certifying that it objects on religious grounds to providin g contraception. This self-

certification process facilitates the providin g of the objected-to contraceptive methods.

This self-certification method is not the

least-restrictive method for furthering the

government’s claimed interests.

35. The government is forci ng Union University to pay a penalty to the federal

government if it follows its si ncerely held religious belief s about the sanctity of human

life, including its sincerely held religious belief that life begins at conception.

36. The Religious Fr eedom Restoration Act prevent s the federal government

from “substantially bur den[ing] a person’s exercise of r eligion even if the bur den results

from a rule of general applicability . . . .” RFRA, howev er, carves out a narrow exception

if “the burden is in furtherance of a compel ling gov ernmental interest; and is the least

restrictive means of furtheri ng that compelling gover nmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. §

200bb-1(a)-(b).

37. Union University qualifies as a “person” entitled to the protection of RFRA.

38. Under RF RA, “exerc ise of religion” includes “any exercis e of religion,

whether or not comp elled by, or central to , a syste m of religious belief.” 42 U.S.C. §

200bb-2(4) (citing § 2000cc-5).

39. The gover nment substantially burdens the exerc ise of religion when it

forces one to choose between f ollowing the tenants of one’s religio n and receiving a

government benefit. The gover nment als o s ubstantially burdens one’s exercis e of

religion when it coerces one to ac t contrary to one’s religious bel iefs by threat of civil or

criminal sanctions.

7

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID 53
54000-76231 (JDB)
40. The government asserts that its com pelling interests are promoting public health and ensuring equal access by women to healthcare services.
41. The gover nment cannot show that pr oviding Union Univ ersity a limited religious e xception from prov iding coverage for contracept ives that prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall would under mine t he g overnment’s interests. This is highlighted by the fact that if Union University ha d a grandfathered health plan, it would not be required to provide this coverage; and because the mandate establishes a procedure for a government agency to grant exceptions from complianc e to various groups.
42. The gover nment cannot show t hat the mandate is t he least r estrictive means of furthering the government’s interest s. There are other means by whic h the government could further its in terests that are less intrusive, e.g., the government could provide the contraceptive services, the gove rnment could wor k with third parties to provide the services, or the employees coul d self-certify that their employer is a religious-based organization who objects to providing these services, or the government could provide tax credits to employees who have to purchase these services.
43. The government’s forcing Union Univ ersity to choose between its religious beliefs and other consequenc es, includi ng paying a penalty to the government, substantially burden’s Union University’s free exercise of religion.
44. The gov ernment’s c onduct violates Union University’s rights to free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
45. The mandate violates Union University’s free-ex ercise rights under the First Amendment because it does not further a compelling government interest.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID 54
54000-76231 (JDB)
46. The mandate is so ri ddled wit h exceptions that it is not a generally applicable rule.
47. Assuming the gover nment estab lished t hat the mandate furthered a compelling government interest, Union Univ ersity is still entitle d to relief un der the First Amendment because the mandate is not the least restrictive means of acc omplishing such an interest.
48. The Act is not generally applicable because it does not apply equally to all individuals, plans, insurers, or employers.
49. The Act is not neutral because some secular and religious gr oups and individuals have received statutory exceptions and HHS waivers while others have not.
50. The Act is not neutral because the government has issued a “safe harbor” that protects certain non-exem pt non-profit religious objecto rs from the contraceptive mandate, but the government does not allow religio us busines ses or their owners, or institutions like Union University to be within this “safe harbor.”
51. The Affordable Care Act regulates the National Healt h Insurance Market by directly regulating group health plans and health insurance issuers.
52. Certain provisions of t he 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); 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(b)(ii).
53. Employers who follow the guidelines of the Department of Health and Human Services may continue to use grandfathered plans indefinitely.
54. According to the Department of Heal th and Human Services, a m ajority of large employers, employing more than 50,000,000 Americans, will continue to use
9

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID 55
54000-76231 (JDB)
grandfathered plans through at l east 2014, and that a third of small employers between 50 and 100 employees may do likewise. The Act creates a system of individualized exemptions.
55. The Department of H ealth and Human Services has the authority under the Act to grant compliance waivers to employers and other heal th insurance plan issuers.
56. These waivers releas e employer s and other plan issuers from complying with the Act.
57. Union University is in the proc ess of looking for health plans for its employees. And the nature of the government’s mandate c onfronts Unio n Universit y with a Hobson’s choice: follow its sincerely held religious beliefs or not.
58. For Unio n University to follow its sincerely held religious beliefs—as it surely will—it must pay a penalty to the government.
V. Causes of action A. Religious Freedom Restoration Act 59. As the basis for its claims under RFRA, Union University incorporates paragraphs 1-58. 60. The mandate is a substantial burden on Union University’s exercise of its religious beliefs. 61. The mandate does not further an overwhelming or compelling government interest.
10

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID 56
54000-76231 (JDB)
62. Assuming the government is able to show an overwhelming governmental interest, the substantial burden imposed on Union University is not the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s interest.
63. Union University’s allegations establish that the mandate is not the least restrictive means because the government creates exceptions, including religiousbased exceptions, with no significant impairment of furthering its interests.
64. Therefore, Union University is entitled to relief under RFRA. B. First Amendment
65. In support of Union University’s First Amendment claims, it relies on the allegations in paragraphs 1-64.
1. Free-exercise clause 66. Union University’s allegations establish that the ACA, its regulations, and the resulting mandate are not rules of general applicability. 67. Furthermore, the many exceptions to the ACA and its mandate prevent the government from establishing that the ACA and its regulations are rules of general applicability. 68. Because the ACA and its regulations are not rules of general applicability, they violate Union University’s First Amendment right to freely exercise its religious beliefs by imposing a substantial burden on Union University’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 69. The mandate is government-imposed pressure to cause Union University to abandon or change its sincerely held religious beliefs. 70. Such coercion is not in furtherance of a compelling government interest.
11

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID 57
54000-76231 (JDB)
71. By ignoring and discouraging the input of individuals, businesses, universities, etc. who do not share the government’s views of abortion or abortion inducing drugs or devices, the government has discriminated against Union University because of its sincerely held religious beliefs.
72. The government’s mandate discriminates against Union University by placing it at a disadvantage because it cannot maintain its sincerely held religious beliefs and offer health care benefits to employees and potential employees. This is a disadvantage in the recruitment and retention of employees.
73. The government’s mandate violates Union University’s freedom of speech because it compels Union University to provide education and counseling related to abortion-inducing drugs and devices.
74. Because the mandate is not narrowly tailored to further any governmental interest; it is not a rule of general applicability; it compels Union University to engage in speech; and there is no compelling governmental interest justifying it, the government’s mandate violates the First Amendment.
2. Establishment clause 75. The establishment clause prevents the government from favoring one religious organization over another. 76. The mandate grants the government unbridled discretion to determine to which religious organizations it will grant an exception from compliance. 77. For the government to grant exceptions to some religious organizations it must “approve” of the belief systems of those organizations.
12

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 13 of 17 PageID 58
54000-76231 (JDB)
78. Because there is no compelling government interest justifying the mandate, there is no compelling government interest justifying the government’s preference of one set of religious beliefs over another.
79. The establishment clause also prohibits the government from becoming excessively entangled with one’s religious beliefs.
80. The government’s unbridled discretion allows it to grant exceptions to religious organizations that the government determines serves the purpose of inculcating religious values. For the government to make such a determination, it must approve the organization’s purpose.
81. A system that allows the government to approve or disapprove the purpose of a religious organization violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
3. Freedom of speech 82. The First Amendment protects Union University’s freedom of speech. 83. The government’s mandate requires Union University to provide or to facilitate the providing of counseling or education regarding the use of abortifacients. 84. This is contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of Union University. Such compelled speech violates Union University’s right to speak without the government’s approval. 85. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the government’s enforcement of the mandate, Union University is in immediate danger of irreparable harm.
13

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 14 of 17 PageID 59
54000-76231 (JDB)

C. Fifth Amendment equal protection

86. Union University adopts the allegations in paragraphs 1-85.

87. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the

government not discriminate against similarly situated organizations.

88.

As alleged above, the mandate authorizes the government to grant

exceptions to some religious organizations while denying exceptions to other religious

organizations.

89. The government’s discretion is limited, at most, to the government’s

determination as to whether it agrees with the views of the various groups.

90. Such differing treatment violates the equal-protection rights guaranteed by

the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause.

D. Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act

91. Union University adopts the allegations in paragraphs 1-90.

92. The government did not give proper notice or opportunity for public

comment before enacting its regulations. Therefore, the government did not take into

account the implications that its regulations would have on organizations such as Union

University.

93. The government has not met its burden of establishing that its failure to

solicit and consider comments was based on good cause and violates 5 U.S.C. § 706

(2) (D).

94. Because the government did not consider the constitutional and statutory

implications of the mandate on Union University and similar organizations, the

regulations are arbitrary and capricious and violate 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2) (A).

14

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 15 of 17 PageID 60
54000-76231 (JDB)
95. 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 (Sept. 30, 2008), provides that “none of the funds made available in this Act 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 the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”
96. The mandate requires issuers, including Union University, to provide coverage or access to coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives.
97. Some of these FDA-approved contraceptives cause abortions by preventing the embryo from implanting in the uterine wall.
98. Because the mandate violates RFRA, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, the mandate is contrary to existing law and violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
99. Section 1303 (b)(1)(A) of the ACA states that “nothing in this title”—i.e., title I of the Act, which includes the provision dealing with the “preventative 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.”
100. The issuer of the plan is to determine whether the plan provides such coverage.
101. Because the mandate seeks to grant the authority of determining whether the plan provides such coverage to the government, it is contrary to existing law and violates the Administrative Procedures Act.
15

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 16 of 17 PageID 61
54000-76231 (JDB)
Prayer for relief Based on the facts of this case, Union University is entitled to the following relief:
a. A judgment declaring that the enforcement of the mandate violates Union University’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
b. A judgment declaring that the enforcement of the mandate violates Union University’s First Amendment rights to be free from the government’s compelling it to abandon its sincerely held religious beliefs, the establishment clause, and Union University’s right to free speech;
c. A judgment declaring that the enforcement of the mandate violates the Fifth Amendment;
d. A judgment declaring that the enforcement of the mandate violates the Administrative Procedures Act;
e. Issue a preliminary and a permanent injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing the mandate against Union University;
f. Award Union University the costs of this action and its reasonable attorney’s fees; and
g. Award Union University such other relief as the Court deems appropriate based on the proof in this case. Union University demands a jury to try all issues that can be tried by a jury.
16

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 3-1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 17 of 17 PageID 62
54000-76231 (JDB)

Respectfully submitted,

RAINEY, KIZER, REVIERE & BELL, PLC

By:

s/ Dale Conder, Jr.

JOHN D. BURLESON, BPR #10400

DALE CONDER, Jr., BPR #15419

Attorneys for Plaintiff Union University

209 East Main Street

P.O. Box 1147

Jackson, TN 38302-1147

(731) 423-2414

jburleson@raineykizer.com

dconder@raineykizer.com

17

 
 Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 15 Filed 04/29/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 106
54000-76231 (JDB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

UNION UNIVERSITY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

No. 1:14-cv-01079 JDB

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, THOMAS PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department Of Labor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING UNION UNIVERSITY’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER

I. Statement of facts Union University filed a complaint challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that it provide coverage for “women’s preventive services.” Complaint (D.E. No. 3-1, Page ID 46). This coverage includes all FDA-approved “‘contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.’” Michigan Catholic Conference v. Sebelius, --- F.Supp.2d ---, 2013 WL 6838707 at * 2 (W.D.Mich.) (quoting 77 Fed.Reg. 8725). Union University bases its challenge to the contraceptive mandate on, among other grounds, the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Complaint (D.E. No. 3-1, Page

1

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 15 Filed 04/29/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID 107
54000-76231 (JDB)
ID 46). Because Union University is facing a May 1, 2014, deadline for complying with the mandate or paying penalties, the university filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. No. 1, Page ID 1); Supporting Memorandum (D.E. No. 1-1, Page ID 3).
The Defendants do not oppose Union University’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Combined Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Stay of Proceedings (D.E. No. 13, Page ID 99). The Defendants point out that they do not believe Union University is likely to prevail on the merits. But based on the orders issued by the motions panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Catholic Conference and Catholic Diocese of Nashville, the Defendants believe that the Sixth Circuit would stay this case pending an appeal if this Court were to rule against the university. Id. at pp. 1-2 (Page ID 99-101). The Defendants also request that the Court “stay all proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the appeals in Michigan Catholic Conference or Catholic Diocese of Nashville, whichever occurs first.” Id. at pp. 2-3 (Page ID 100-101). The Defendants also request that the preliminary injunction remain in place until 30 days after the Sixth Circuit issues the mandate following its decision in the first of the two cases pending in the Sixth Circuit. Id. at p. 2 (Page ID 100).
II. Analysis In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must balance the following factors: (1) whether Union University has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of success on the merits; (2) whether Union University has shown irreparable injury; (3) whether the issuance of the restraining order would cause
2

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 15 Filed 04/29/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID 108
54000-76231 (JDB)
substantial harm to others; and (4) whether issuing the TRO would serve the public interest. See Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman, --- F.3d ---, 2014 1357041 (6th Cir.).
Here, it is significant that the Defendants do not oppose Union University’s request for a preliminary injunction pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision in either Michigan Catholic Conference or Catholic Diocese of Nashville. Combined Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Stay of Proceedings (D.E. No. 13, Page ID 99). These cases are set for oral argument on May 8, 2014. Id. at p. 2, n. 2 (Page ID 100). The Defendant’s agreement leads the Court to conclude that issuing the preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to others.
Losing one’s First Amendment freedoms, even for a minimal period, constitutes an irreparable injury. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). Therefore, if Union University shows a likelihood of success, it has shown irreparable injury.
The Supreme Court of the United States has not considered similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims. Michigan Catholic Conference, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 13-2723 Order Staying Case Pending Appeal at p. 2. (D.E. 11-3, Page ID 91). Because the courts that have addressed similar claims have issued conflicting opinions, the Sixth Circuit held that there is more than the mere possibility of success on the merits. Id. at pp. 2-3.
Based on the Sixth Circuit’s order in Michigan Catholic Conference, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 13-2723, the Court concludes that the factors weigh in favor of granting the preliminary injunction.
3

Case 1:14-cv-01079-JDB-egb Document 15 Filed 04/29/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID 109
54000-76231 (JDB)
Therefore, the Court grants Union University’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoins the Defendants from enforcing the mandate against Union University. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until 30 days after the Sixth Circuit issues its mandate in either Michigan Catholic Conference or Catholic Diocese of Nashville, whichever occurs first. This case is stayed during the time the preliminary injunction is in effect.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED. This 29th day of April, 2014.
s/ J. Daniel Breen CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, J. DANIEL BREEN
4

 
 Case: 1:14-cv-1079 As of: 01/08/2018 08:29 PM CST 1 of 4
CLOSED,LR16.2 TR4,STAYED
U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee (Jackson) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−01079−STA−egb

Union University v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Date Terminated: 11/16/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Union University

represented by John D. Burleson RAINEY KIZER REVIERE & BELL 209 E. Main Street Jackson, TN 38301 731−423−2414 Fax: 731−426−8150 Email: jburleson@raineykizer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Milton Dale Conder , Jr. RAINEY KIZER REVIERE & BELL 209 E. Main St. P.O. Box 1147 Jackson, TN 38302−1147 731−423−2414 Fax: 731−426−8150 Email: dconder@raineykizer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Don Wright Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys US DEPTARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 Massachusetts Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3367 Email: bradley.p.humphreys@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Renee Bennett U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 202−305−8902 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-1079 As of: 01/08/2018 08:29 PM CST 2 of 4

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
R. Alexander Acosta Secretary of the United States Department of Labor

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
Steven T. Mnuchin Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant United States Department of Labor

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Defendant
United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

Date Filed 04/04/2014 04/04/2014
04/04/2014

# Docket Text
1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Union University. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminay Injunction, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Women's Preventive Service, # 3 Exhibit 2 Free Publications)(Conder, Milton) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0651−1881443), filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Sebelius, # 3 Summons Dept. HHS, # 4 Summons Lew, # 5 Summons Perez)(Conder, Milton) Modified on 4/7/2014− Main document sealed as it was filed in error by the filing attorney per 4/7/14 telephone call. See DE# 3 for the Complaint (cdi). (Entered: 04/04/2014)
3 Notice of Correction to 2 Complaint, . (Attachments: # 1 Complaint)(Conder, Milton) (Entered: 04/04/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-1079 As of: 01/08/2018 08:29 PM CST 3 of 4

04/04/2014 04/07/2014
04/07/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014 04/07/2014 04/08/2014
04/24/2014
04/24/2014 04/25/2014
04/29/2014 04/29/2014 04/29/2014
05/02/2014
06/11/2015 03/24/2017

4 Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen and Magistrate Judge Edward G. Bryant added. (jlh) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
5 Summons Issued as to Department of Health and Human Services, Jacob J. Lew, Thomas E. Perez, Kathleen Sebelius. The filer has been notified electronically that the summons has been issued, and the new docket entry reflects this. Upon notification of the new docket entry, the filer is to print the issued summons in order to effect service. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Lew, # 2 Summons Perez, # 3 Summons Sebelius)(jlh) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
6 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (jlh) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
7 NOTICE of Summons by Milton Dale Conder, Jr on behalf of Union University. (Conder, Milton) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by John D. Burleson on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Burleson, John) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
9 Notice of Correction to 8 Notice of Appearance . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Notice of Appearance for John D. Burleson)(Burleson, John) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
10 Summons Issued as to Edward L. Stanton, United States Attorney. The filer has been notified electronically that the summons has been issued, and the new docket entry reflects this. Upon notification of the new docket entry, the filer is to print the issued summons in order to effect service. (jlh) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order proposed order submitted by Union University. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, # 2 Exhibit 1−Declaration of Dale Conder, Jr., # 3 Exhibit 2− Order Granting Stay, # 4 Certificate of Consultation)(Conder, Milton) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley Philip Humphreys on behalf of All Defendants (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
13 NOTICE by Department of Health and Human Services, Jacob J. Lew, Thomas E. Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service re 1 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction Non−Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Stay (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
14 NOTICE by Union University Response to the Defendant's Request for a Stay proposed order submitted (Conder, Milton) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
15 ORDER GRANTING UNION UNIVERSITY'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER 1 . Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/29/14. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
16 TEXT ORDER (no document attached) Finding as Moot 11 Motion for TRO pursuant to the Order 15 entered on this date granting the motion for preliminary injunction and staying all proceedings in this matter.. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/29/14. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Union University. All Defendants. U.S. Attorney served on 4/9/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Signature card, # 2 Summons Lew summons, # 3 Exhibit signature card, # 4 Summons signature card, # 5 Exhibit Perez summons, # 6 Summons Sebelius summons, # 7 Exhibit signature card, # 8 Summons Stanton summons, # 9 Exhibit Signature card)(Conder, Milton) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Renee Bennett on behalf of All Defendants (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
19 ADMIN ORDER 2017−11 − ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson for all further proceedings. Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 3/24/2017. (Breen, J.) (Entered: 03/24/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-1079 As of: 01/08/2018 08:29 PM CST 4 of 4

10/04/2017 10/04/2017 11/03/2017
11/06/2017 11/16/2017 11/16/2017

20 ORDER REQUESTING STATUS REPORT. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 10/4/17. (mbm) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
21 STATUS REPORT Responding to Court Order by Union University. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Conder, Milton) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
22 STATUS REPORT by R. Alexander Acosta, Department of Health and Human Services, Steven T. Mnuchin, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Don Wright. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
23 ORDER EXTENDING INJUNCTION AND REQUESTING FURTHER STATUS UPDATES. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/6/17. (mbm) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
24 STIPULATION of Dismissal by Union University. (Conder, Milton) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
25 JUDGMENT. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 11/16/2017. (mbb) (Entered: 11/16/2017)