Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLNOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER YEP, MARY ANNE YEP, AND

)

TRIUNE HEALTH GROUP, INC., an Illinois

)

corporation,

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & )

HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in )

her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Depart- )

ment of Health & Human Services; UNITED

)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY )

F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the Secret- )

ary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury;

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

)

HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secret- )

ary of the U.S. Department of Labor; ILLINOIS

)

DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE; ANDREW

)

W. BORON, in his official capacity as Director of the )

Illinois Department of Insurance.

)

)

Defendants. )

NO.
COMPLAINT
Jury Demanded On All Issues So Triable

Plaintiffs, Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep, and Triune Health Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, complain of the defendants, through their undersigned attorneys, as follows:
Nature of the Case 1. This is a civil rights action by which plaintiffs sue for declaratory and injunctive relief, to cease, redress, and repair the defendants’ grave and ongoing infringement of their fundamental constitutional rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, as well as their statutory rights arising under other provisions of federal and Illinois law, to engage in the free and robust exercise of their religious beliefs, in strict and faithful adherence to the deepest dictates of their

1

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:2
private conscience as well as their publicly professed religious beliefs and the religious dimension of their corporate mission. More specifically, all three plaintiffs, including the individual co-owners of their privately owned close corporation and the corporation itself, through which the plaintiffs engaged in the provision of professional supportive services for the health care industry, affirm and embrace a solemn conviction and belief that is at the heart of their Roman Catholic religious faith. That conviction is also embedded in the corporate plaintiff’s statement of mission, that “every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances and life and dignity of the human person.” Plaintiffs complain herein that federal and Illinois laws alike now purport to require them to provide their employees with drugs and services that they cannot continue to provide without offending and violating their sincere religious convictions and putting aside their conscientious beliefs about what is right and what is fundamentally, grievously wrong, and which also grossly disserves the health and welfare of their employees. In particular, plaintiffs deem it abhorrent and evil that they find themselves now doubly mandated – by federal and Illinois law alike – to provide other human beings, their cherished employees, with drugs and services relating to abortifacients, sterilization, and artificial reproductive and contraceptive technologies, which are inimical to their health and well-being, as well as being fundamentally at odds with plaintiffs’ religious faith and corporate mission.
2. Plaintiffs, Christopher and Mary Anne Yep are ardent and faithful adherents of the Roman Catholic religion. They believe that the inherent dignity, and indeed the inviolable sanctity, of each and every human being rests ultimately on the immutable truth that each person has been created in the image and likeness of God, before whom they stand as equals, endowed with inalienable rights. Consequently, they believe that the life of each and every human being
2

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:3
must be protected, cherished, and even fostered from the moment of his or her conception until natural death, no matter whether that human being may be flawed or flawless, rich or poor, humble or exalted. They believe that the procreative capacity of human beings represents a precious gift from God by which individuals are allowed to participate in God’s plan to share life and that, as a result, any acts of deliberate interference with that procreative capacity bound up with acts of unitive human love – including artificial contraception, abortion, and/or sterilization – are gravely wrong and sinful. They also believe that the use and promotion of reproductive technologies that involve the destruction of human embryos or which purport to divide and sunder the procreative core of human sexuality from its unitive elements are gravely wrong and sinful. That both the federal and state governments would coerce plaintiffs to flout such profound and fundamental beliefs seems totally at odds with repeated declarations of the Founding Fathers. It also runs wholly counter to the thrust of our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence to the effect that, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.” West Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)(emphasis added). A fortiori, that plaintiffs would be forced to underwrite abortifacients – drugs that kill human beings, such as the so-called “morning-after pill” and “Ella” – would put the lie to the stated ground on which a decisive plurality of Justices affirmed the right of citizens, whose values fall on the opposite side of the moral spectrum from plaintiffs’, to choose to abort prenatal human beings, as follows: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505
3

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:4
U.S. 833, 851 (1992). The fundamental liberties of citizens must surely encompass defining a concept of the meaning and mystery of human life that – in consonance with the resounding words of the Declaration of Independence – affirms a “right to life” that is “inalienable,” and thus protected against any government fiat to the contrary.
3. By reason of their religious conviction the Yeps sincerely believe that they cannot facilitate access to, subsidize, or materially cooperate with the provision of the offensive drugs or services described herein without breaching their solemn and sacred obligations to God, betraying their professed religious faith, and disserving the best interests of – as well as risking serious physical and/or spiritual injury to – their fellow human beings.
4. The Yeps own and control the corporate plaintiff, Triune Health Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation (“Triune Health Group” or “Triune”), and they wish to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith relating to the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the individual, and the institution of marriage. They believe that their religious faith, which shapes and determines their understanding of the importance and meaning of their lives, must inform all of their actions, including their actions as directors and officers of Triune Health Group, in order for them to live fully integrated lives which provide for Christian witness to those around them.
5. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to secure judicial review of the federal defendants’ violations of constitutional and statutory provisions in connection with the defendants’ promulgation and implementation of certain regulations adopted under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the PPACA”). They seek review, specifically, of those regulations purporting to mandate that employers include in their employee group health benefit plans coverage for drugs and services that are so wholly at odds with their religious and
4

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:5
moral values and sincere religious beliefs and sacred commitments. 6. Plaintiffs ask the court for declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of the
Final Rule confirmed and promulgated by the federal defendants on February 15, 2012, mandating that group health plans include coverage, without cost sharing, for “all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (hereafter, “the Mandate” or “the Final Rule” or “the Mandate/Rule”), 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 found at http://www.hrsa.gov/ womensguidelines. In addition, plaintiffs seek relief from the operation of Illinois state law, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4 and 5/356m, which requires that, in order to provide accident and health benefits for their employees, the insurance purchased by plaintiffs must include provisions for drugs and services that plaintiffs cannot make available to their employees without contravening the plaintiffs’ sincere religious convictions.
7. Plaintiffs contend that by requiring them to provide employees with access to drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincere religious convictions, these federal and state laws operate together to violate their legal rights, including the fundamental rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Illinois Constitution of 1970, as well as their rights under other federal and state laws.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1361, and 1367, as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States or under state
5

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:6
laws giving rise to claims that form part of the same essential underlying case or controversy. This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202 and 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1.
9. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1), as the plaintiffs reside within this district.
The Parties 10. Plaintiff, Christopher Yep, is an individual and a citizen of the State of Illinois and the United States. 11. Plaintiff, Mary Anne Yep, is an individual and a citizen of the State of Illinois and the United States. 12. The Yeps own and control Plaintiff, Triune Health Group, an Illinois for-profit corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business situated at Oakbrook, IL within the Northern District of Illinois. 13. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule. 14. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is Secretary of HHS, and is named as a party defendant in her official capacity. 15. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule. 16. Defendant Timothy F. Geithner is Secretary of the Treasury, and is named as a party in his official capacity. 17. Defendant United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) is an agency of the
6

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:7
United States, and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule.
18. Defendant Hilda L. Solis is Secretary of DOL, and is named as a party in her official capacity.
19. Defendant the Illinois Department of Insurance is responsible for enforcement of state law mandatory benefit provisions challenged here.
20. Defendant Andrew Boron is sued in his official capacity as Director of the Department of Insurance, the agency responsible for enforcing the state law insurance benefit mandates challenged here.
Factual Allegations 21. Plaintiff, Triune, is a corporation that specializes in facilitating the re-entry of injured workers into the workforce so that they can continue to live productive lives, enjoy the dignity of work, and achieve their personal goals. 22. Plaintiffs Christopher and Mary Anne Yep formed the corporation so that they could operate their business in a manner more consistent with their deeply held religious convictions, including their beliefs about the dignity of the human person and the dignity and central importance of the family. 23. The corporate name, “Triune,” reflects the Yeps’ religious conviction that a Triune God consisting of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, created human beings in His image and likeness, a truth originally reflected in their earlier symbol, namely, three interlocking rings. The name “Triune” also reflects the Yeps’ conviction that total health of the person has three dimensions, namely, physical, mental, and spiritual. Plaintiffs regard this as a fundamental truth about the nature of the human person and a truth that must be taken into
7

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:8
account in connection with any effort to facilitate the full recovery of a person – physically, mentally, and spiritually. Thus from the earliest days of the Yeps’ efforts to run their business they have used as the corporate logo the circles, two on the bottom, one on top, united by a shared field, a longstanding representation of the Trinity.
24. As plaintiffs seek to facilitate the recovery of injured workers, they encourage their clients to assess their goals and determine the steps each needs to take in order to recover and live full and healthy lives. Plaintiffs believe that their efforts to help workers re-enter the workforce and enjoy the dignity of work is vitally important to total rehabilitation of injured workers and must be the focus of any rehabilitation. These efforts are done both in obedience to and in furtherance of plaintiffs’ Catholic faith.
25. Plaintiffs serve clients of all faiths and do not use Catholic faith or beliefs as a qualification for client selection or service.
26. Plaintiffs in no way impose their religious views upon their clients. Quite the contrary, they endeavor to help each and every client determine for himself or herself what goals he or she needs to achieve in order to live a full and flourishing, truly human life.
27. Plaintiffs’ treatment of their more than fifty employees is also informed by their religious faith and their desire to treat each employee as a person made in the image and likeness of God. Plaintiffs strive to create a workplace where each employee is respected, treated fairly, receives a just wage, and enjoys accident and health benefits that allow their employees to live consistent with their human dignity.
28. Plaintiffs do not require employees to be Catholic or use it in any way as a qualification of employment. Plaintiffs currently employ and will continue to hire individuals of all faiths.
8

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:9
29. By employing more than fifty individuals, Triune is defined by the PPACA as a “large employer” subject to penalties if it does not provide the mandated coverage.
30. These penalties can amount to a crippling $100 per day per employee. 31. Because of the plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, Triune’s employee handbook thus proclaims its mission, as follows: “We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.” Likewise, Triune’s Mission and Virtues Agreement states that “Triune Health Group is a mission and virtue based organization, which respects life from conception to natural death.” 32. Plaintiffs believe that Triune’s employees have acknowledged and expressed support for the plaintiffs’ efforts by voting Triune as one of the best places to work in the Chicago area, in 2010 and 2012, and further, by selecting Triune as “the Number One Place for Women to Work in 2012” by a prominent business publication in the Chicago metro area, namely, Crain’s Chicago Business. Plaintiffs are grateful to their employees for this acknowledgment of plaintiffs’ efforts to treat all of their employees with respect and dignity as creatures made in the image and likeness of a loving God. 33. From the first moment of their business operations the plaintiffs have tried to ensure that their operations are fully consistent with their sincere religious convictions. 34. Plaintiffs consider the provision of employee health insurance an integral component of furthering their corporate mission and values by treating their employees well. In addition, plaintiffs realize that providing some level of benefits is a practical business necessity because failure to do so would undermine their efforts to attract and retain quality employees which, in turn, would undermine their efforts to facilitate the recovery of injured workers.
9

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:10
35. Plaintiffs hold to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death as well as to the Church’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage and sexual morality. Plaintiffs believe abortion, contraception (including abortifacients), sterilization, and reproductive technologies that separate the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality or involve the destruction of human life are gravely wrong and sinful. They also believe such practices are harmful to the health and wellbeing of all human beings.
36. Plaintiffs believe that providing their employees with coverage for drugs and services that facilitate such immoral practices constitutes cooperation with evil that violates the laws of God. However, the only way in which Triune can provide accident and health benefits for its employees is by purchasing an insurance that covers such immoral practices.
37. Plaintiffs have no choice but to provide their employees with benefits required by state law, refuse to provide employee benefits, or go out of business.
38. Plaintiffs believe it would be immoral for them to strip their employees of benefits.
39. Plaintiffs believe that stripping their employees of benefits would cripple their business.
40. Plaintiffs do not wish to go out of business and do not believe they should be forced to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs by engaging in wrongful and sinful acts and shutting down their business.
41. Currently, Illinois state law requires that plaintiffs violate their religious convictions because the state mandates that any insurance policy purchased by Triune provide benefits to its employees to include the drugs and services to which they object by reason of their
10

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:11
sincerely held religious convictions. More specifically, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4 requires Triune’s policy to provide coverage for contraception, including abortifacient contraception, and sterilizations. Additionally, 215 ILCS 5/356m requires Triune’s policy to provide coverage for reproductive technologies that are gravely at odds with plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and convictions.
42. Further, the recently enacted federal Mandate also requires employers to provide coverage for the full range of FDA approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and also to provide education and counseling with respect to these matters for all women with reproductive capacity. More specifically, the federal Mandate requires the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs because it would require them to provide employees with contraception, including abortifacient contraception, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morningafter pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action, as well as sterilization.
43. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the state law mandates because they apply to any benefits policy issued in Illinois, where Triune is located, so Triune cannot secure the policy it needs to provide health benefits without inclusion of mandated benefits when facilitating in the provision of those benefits constitutes gravely wrong and sinful conduct.
44. Plaintiffs are subject to the federal Mandate that requires them to provide these benefits as well.
45. The plaintiffs do not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption contained in the Final Rule relating to the federal Mandate. See 45 CFR § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) as Plaintiff A. is a for profit entity, B. hires many non-Catholics C. serves many non-Catholics and
11

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:12
D. does not have a primary purpose of inculcating religious values.. 46. Triune cannot take advantage of the “temporary enforcement safe harbor” as set
forth by the federal defendants at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012) because it is a profit entity. 47. Triune cannot avoid the federal Mandate by employing the “grandfathering”
provision or the temporary safe harbor because even before the federal Mandate took effect Illinois state law required coverage for the drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. Triune currently has coverage that meets this requirement and thus is not grandfathered.
48. At present, the state and federal mandates described herein work together to force plaintiffs to violate their conscience and betray their religious convictions by requiring that they provide their employees with benefits which the plaintiffs believe to be intrinsically wrongful, evil, and sinful. Yet, plaintiffs believe that they are morally obliged to provide their employees with health and accident insurance benefits.
49. Triune’s group health plan is due for renewal on January 1, 2013. 50. Plaintiffs wish to renew coverage for their employees by purchasing an employee group insurance policy while excluding coverage for drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. 51. Plaintiffs cannot purchase an insurance policy in order to provide benefits consistent with their religious convictions because the state mandate requires any policy issued to Triune to provide their employees with access to drugs and services plaintiffs believe to be wrongful and intrinsically evil as described herein. 52. Plaintiffs cannot provide benefits to their employees consistent with their religious convictions because the federal Mandate requires that plaintiffs provide their
12

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:13
employees with access to drugs and services that plaintiffs believe to be wrongful and intrinsically evil.
53. Plaintiffs have fully researched the possibility of self-insurance to avoid state mandates, but this option is neither legally nor financially viable for them.
54. Consequently, the state and federal mandates at issue force plaintiffs to provide their employees with coverage of those services that plaintiffs consider wrongful, sinful and immoral.
55. Plaintiffs are subject to the federal Mandate and are confronted with a Hobson’s choice: either choose to comply with the federal mandate’s requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, or pay ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their business and force them to shut down.
56. The federal Mandate is not generally applicable to all business entities. 57. Grandfathered plans are exempt from the federal Mandate’s preventative care requirement. 58. The federal Mandate is not generally applicable to all religious entities. 59. Some religious sects are exempted from compliance with the federal Mandate 60. Some religious divisions are exempted from compliance with the federal Mandate. 61. The PPACA creates a system of individualized mandates, rather than an otherwise uniformly and generally applicable governmental mandate, because it allows discretionary compliance waivers. 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the federal defendants have already granted numerous waivers from compliance with the federal governmental Mandate to selected
13

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:14
business entities for purely secular reasons. 63. Entities granted waivers of the federal Mandate do not have to provide coverage
mandated by HHS. 64. Entities granted waivers of the federal Mandate do not have to provide coverage
for contraception, including abortifacient contraception, and sterilization. 65. The federal and state mandates challenged here do not advance a compelling
interest. 66. The federal and state mandates challenged here are neither narrowly tailored nor
the least restrictive means available to advance any interests the government may assert. 67. The federal and state mandates challenged here can be advanced by other means
that are narrowly tailored and do not burden plaintiffs by requiring them to engage in conduct contrary to their religious conviction.
68. Failure to comply with the federal Mandate subjects an employer to liability for fines.
69. Failure to comply with the federal Mandate subjects an employer to liability for penalties.
70. The federal Mandate has the force of law. 71. No monetary damages could adequately compensate plaintiffs for the suppression of their constitutional rights stemming from their having been compelled to engage in acts contrary to their religious and moral beliefs and their accompanying statement of corporate mission. Thus an award of injunctive relief is necessary to avert and prevent plaintiffs from suffering immediate, grave, and ongoing illegal and irreparable harm. 72. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm by
14

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:15
reason of the federal and state mandates that force the plaintiffs to engage in conduct they believe to be intrinsically evil by providing their employees with access to drugs and benefits to which the plaintiffs object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions.
73. Plaintiffs have filed suit because they cannot continue to comply with these immoral mandates, which they believe to be illegal and unconstitutional, and must seek relief to escape the dilemma in which they find themselves.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I
Violation of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act 74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 75. The federal Mandate/Final Rule, imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free and robust exercise of their religious faith and convictions by coercing them to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial, prohibitively expensive penalties to the government – potentially forcing them out of business. 76. The federal Mandate/Final Rule furthers no compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored to any compelling interest, and is not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest. 77. The Mandate/Final Rule and the defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violate rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb, et seq. 78. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs will be greatly, illegally, and irreparably harmed.
15

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:16
Count II Violation of 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Religious Liberty & Establishment
79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 80. The federal Mandate/Final Rule imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing them to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial, prohibitively expensive penalties to the government – potentially forcing them out of business. 81. Operating a business in accordance with one’s religious beliefs is a form of religious exercise. 82. The federal legislation and implementing regulations require an intrusive inquiry into whether entities are “religious” enough to qualify for an exemption and defines religious practice in a limited sense that deprives citizens of their right to lead their lives in accordance with their religious convictions by purporting to dictate when, and under what circumstances, citizens can conduct their affairs consistent with their faith. Moreover, said federal law and the regulatory Mandates handed down thereunder are not neutral laws of general applicability inasmuch as they are honeycombed with exceptions, waivers, and safe harbors. Thus while the Mandate’s applicability to plaintiffs entails a severe curtailment and suppression of the plaintiffs’ rights to free and robust exercise of their religious faith, those organizations that fall within the federal exceptions or are granted waivers suffer no such curtailment or suppression of their rights. 83. Additionally all employers with fewer than fifty employees are exempt. 84. Thus the Mandate is neither “neutral” nor “generally applicable.” 85. Quite the contrary, the federal Mandate discriminates among religious groups and
16

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:17
other citizens by providing exemptions to some but not to others. 86. The Mandate discriminates among religious believers by providing exemptions to
some but not others based on the government’s unduly narrow and crabbed concept of what it means to practice religion, contrary to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and also based on the government’s manifest preference for certain religious denominations, and the tenets they embrace, and its disfavor of other denominations, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
87. The Mandate grants different levels of importance and accommodation to both specific religious beliefs, as against other beliefs, and to specific religious groups and individuals, as against other groups and individuals with the same faith and beliefs.
88. The Mandate/Final Rule, moreover, furthers no compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored to advance the government’s asserted interest, and is not the least restrictive means of advancing the government’s asserted interest.
89. The federal Mandate/Final Rule and the defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violate plaintiffs’ right to religious liberty as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and also infringes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the government has an interest in the provision of contraception, there are many ways to accomplish this goal without burdening plaintiffs’ religious liberty.
90. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs will be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
17

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:18
Count III Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Free Speech Clause
91. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 92. Plaintiffs believe that the aforementioned services covered by the federal Mandate/Final Rule are intrinsically wrongful, evil, and harmful to individuals who use them. 93. The Mandate/Final Rule and state law mandates compel the Plaintiffs to pay for and/or provide their employees with education and counseling related to contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Such education and counseling does not condemn these things as intrinsically wrongful, evil as well as harmful to individuals but instead treats such drugs and services as morally licit and beneficial. As a consequence, plaintiffs must stifle their own fundamental, conscientious beliefs to conform their speech to fit the government’s mold. 94. The federal and state defendants’ actions violate the plaintiffs’ free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by forcing plaintiffs to sponsor and pay for speech advancing views with which plaintiffs deeply disagree, as those views are wholly at odds with their conscientious religious and moral principles and convictions. 95. The Mandate/Final Rule and state law mandates do not further a compelling interest, are not narrowly tailored to advance the governmental interest, and are not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest. 96. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule and state law mandates, plaintiffs will continue to be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
Count IV Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706 97. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
18

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:19
98. The Mandate/Final Rule is contrary to section 1303(b)(1)(A) of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), Pub. L. 111-148 § 1303, 124 Stat. 119, 168 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. §18023(b)(1)(A)), which provides that “nothing in this title . . . 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.” The federal Mandate requires provision of abortifacients, drugs that will result in abortions, contrary to this statutory section.
99. 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), states that “[n]one of the funds made available in this Act [making appropriations for Defendants Department of Labor and 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.” And the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), provides that “No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
100. The Mandate/Final Rule is thus contrary to existing law, and therefore it should be judicially reviewed and declared void, pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. §706(2), as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or short of statutory right. The Mandate/Final Rule should also be struck down as having been promulgated without observance of procedure required by
19

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:20
law, namely, 5 U.S.C. §553, in that no notice or comment period was provided before the federal defendants promulgated said Mandate/Final Rule, as legally required. The federal defendants disregarded and dispensed with these procedural protections requiring notice and comment on the part of interested parties without legally sufficient cause.
101. The federal defendants essentially delegated their rule making authority to a nongovernmental organization so as to circumvent the APA and in violation of the Act.
102. The federal defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, furthermore, when they ignored comments indicating that abortifacient, contraceptive, and sterilization services, as well as counseling and education for these services, could not reasonably be viewed as preventative care. There is no sign that the many comments detailing these facts were given any actual consideration.
103. Thus the defendants’ actions should be set aside, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2), on multiple grounds.
104. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs have been and will continue to be greatly, irreparably and illegally harmed.
Count V Violation of the Illinois Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70/1, et seq. 105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 106. Plaintiff Triune is a healthcare payer within the meaning of the Illinois Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70/1, et seq., because it arranges for payment of health care, medical services, and related procedures and products for its employees by purchasing an insurance policy. 107. Under the Illinois Right of Conscience Act, Triune is legally allowed to provide
20

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:21
healthcare benefits to its employees by purchasing an insurance policy that excludes coverage for medical services to which it objects by reason of its sincerely held religious conviction.
108. Under the Illinois Right of Conscience Act, Triune is authorized to purchase an insurance policy that does not comply with the state law mandates that in turn violate Triune’s sincerely held religious conviction.
109. Under the Illinois Right of Conscience Act an insurer is authorized to issue to Triune a policy that that does not comply with the state law mandates to which Triune objects by reason of its sincere, conscientious religious beliefs and convictions.
110. Triune respectfully requests that the Court declare that the Illinois Right of Conscience Act allows Triune to purchase, and an insurer to issue to Triune, an insurance policy that excludes coverage for healthcare benefits to which Triune objects by reason of its sincerely held religious convictions as set forth herein.
111. Plaintiffs have been forced by government to act at odds with their sincerely held religious beliefs, for which they should be held entitled to recover compensatory damages. Furthermore, absent declaratory and injunctive relief the plaintiffs have been and will continue be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
Count VI Violation of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/1, et seq.
112. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 113. The state law mandates at issue require plaintiffs to provide benefits to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. 114. The state law requirements at issue impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by forcing the plaintiffs to either engage in conduct they believe to be sinful
21

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:22
or go out of business. 115. The state law mandates at issue do not advance a compelling governmental
interest, are not narrowly tailored to advance the governmental interest, and are not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest.
116. The state law mandate at issue violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/1, et. seq.
117. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief the plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
Count VII Violation of the Illinois Bill of Rights: Religious Freedom 118. Plaintiffs incorporate the prior allegations of the complaint herein. 119. The state law mandate at issue here requires plaintiffs to provide benefits they believe to be gravely wrong and sinful, and indeed, deeply at odds with their sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions. 120. The state law mandate at issue constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free and robust exercise of their religious faith and convictions by forcing them either to provide benefits in violation of their sincerely held religious convictions or go out of business. 121. The state law mandate does not advance a compelling governmental interest, is not narrowly tailored to governmental interest, and is not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest. 122. The state law mandate at issue violates the right to religious liberty guaranteed by Article I, §3 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 123. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief the plaintiffs have been, and will continue
22

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:23
to be, greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed. Count VIII
Violation of the Illinois Bill of Rights: Freedom Of Speech 124. The state law mandate at issue requires plaintiffs to pay for speech in furtherance of the use of drugs and services that the plaintiffs believe to be intrinsically evil as well as harmful to individuals. 125. The state law requirement compels plaintiffs to support speech that is contrary to their deeply held religious convictions and directly contrary to the information plaintiffs would prefer to provide to their employees about contraceptives, including abortifacient contraceptives, and sterilization. 126. The state law requirement violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article I, §4 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. 127. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court: a. Declare that the federal and state law mandates at issue here and defendants’ enforcement thereof violate and infringe upon the plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or statutory rights as alleged herein; b. Declare that Triune is authorized to purchase, and that an insurer is authorized to issue to Triune, a policy that excludes benefits to which the plaintiffs object by reason of their sincerely held, conscientious religious beliefs and convictions; c. Issue preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from
23

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:24

enforcing the federal and state laws alleged to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or

statutory rights;

d. Award the plaintiffs nominal damages as well as their costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees as may be authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, 745 ILCS 70/12, 775 ILCS

35/20, the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, 740 ILCSS 23/1 et seq.,and any other

applicable Illinois or other law authorizing such fees; and

e. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Submitted this 22nd day of August, 2012.

s/ Thomas Brejcha s/ Patrick Gillen* s/ Samuel B. Casey * s/ David B. Waxman* s/ Peter Breen s/ Jason Craddock Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Of Counsel: Thomas Brejcha Patrick Gillen Peter Breen Marian Haney Jason Craddock Thomas More Society 29 South LaSalle St. – Suite 440 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel. 312-782-1680 Fax 312-782-1887

*Pro hac vice applications to be filed

Samuel B. Casey David B. Waxman JUBILEE CAMPAIGN, Law of Life Project 801 G. Street, N.W. Suite 521 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel. 202-587-5652 Fax. 703-349-7323

24

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/22/12 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Thomas Brejcha, plaintiffs’ counsel, hereby certify that on or before August 23, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was caused to be filed electronically with this Court through the CM/ECF filing system and that I mailed a copy of the foregoing complaint by placing same in a sealed envelope, together with the requisite waiver forms, and properly addressing same to the following persons, affixing proper first class postage prepaid thereto, and depositing same in the U.S. mail chute at 29 South LaSalle St., Suite 440, Chicago, IL 60603:

Eric H. Holder, Jr. U.S. Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

Timothy F. Geithner U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220

Kathleen Sebelius U.S. Depart. of Health & Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201

Andrew W. Boron Illinois Department of Insurance 320 W. Washington Springfield, IL 62767-0001

Hilda Solis U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20210

Gary Shapiro Acting United States Attorney 219 South Dearborn Street – 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604

s/ Thomas Brejcha

25

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLNOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER YEP, MARY ANNE YEP, AND

)

TRIUNE HEALTH GROUP, INC., an Illinois

)

corporation,

)

Plaintiffs, )

vs.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & )

HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in )

her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S.

)

Department of Health & Human Services; UNITED )

STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;

)

TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity as )

the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

)

HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary )

of the U.S. Department of Labor,

)

Defendants. )

NO. 12-cv-06756
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Jury Demanded On All Issues So Triable

Plaintiffs, Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep, and Triune Health Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation, complain of the defendants, through their undersigned attorneys, as follows:
Nature of the Case 1. This is a civil rights action by which plaintiffs sue for declaratory and injunctive relief, to cease, redress, and repair the defendants’ grave and ongoing infringement of their fundamental constitutional rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, as well as their statutory rights arising under other provisions of federal and Illinois law, to engage in the free and robust exercise of their religious beliefs, in strict and faithful adherence to the deepest dictates of their private conscience as well as their publicly professed religious beliefs and the religious dimension of their corporate mission. More specifically, all three plaintiffs, including the

1

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:59
individual co-owners of their privately owned close corporation and the corporation itself, through which the plaintiffs engaged in the provision of professional supportive services for the health care industry, affirm and embrace a solemn conviction and belief that is at the heart of their Roman Catholic religious faith. That conviction is also embedded in the corporate plaintiff’s statement of mission, that “every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances and life and dignity of the human person.” Plaintiffs complain herein that federal and Illinois laws alike now purport to require them to provide their employees with drugs and services that they cannot continue to provide without offending and violating their sincere religious convictions and putting aside their conscientious beliefs about what is right and what is fundamentally, grievously wrong, and which also grossly disserves the health and welfare of their employees. In particular, plaintiffs deem it abhorrent and evil that they find themselves now doubly mandated – by federal and Illinois law alike – to provide other human beings, their cherished employees, with drugs and services relating to abortifacients, sterilization, and artificial reproductive and contraceptive technologies, which are inimical to their health and well-being, as well as being fundamentally at odds with plaintiffs’ religious faith and corporate mission.
2. Plaintiffs, Christopher and Mary Anne Yep are ardent and faithful adherents of the Roman Catholic religion. They believe that the inherent dignity, and indeed the inviolable sanctity, of each and every human being rests ultimately on the immutable truth that each person has been created in the image and likeness of God, before whom they stand as equals, endowed with inalienable rights. Consequently, they believe that the life of each and every human being must be protected, cherished, and even fostered from the moment of his or her conception until natural death, no matter whether that human being may be flawed or flawless, rich or poor,
2

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:60
humble or exalted. They believe that the procreative capacity of human beings represents a precious gift from God by which individuals are allowed to participate in God’s plan to share life and that, as a result, any acts of deliberate interference with that procreative capacity bound up with acts of unitive human love – including artificial contraception, abortion, and/or sterilization – are gravely wrong and sinful. They also believe that the use and promotion of reproductive technologies that involve the destruction of human embryos or which purport to divide and sunder the procreative core of human sexuality from its unitive elements are gravely wrong and sinful. That both the federal and state governments would coerce plaintiffs to flout such profound and fundamental beliefs seems totally at odds with repeated declarations of the Founding Fathers. It also runs wholly counter to the thrust of our modern Supreme Court jurisprudence to the effect that, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.” West Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)(emphasis added). A fortiori, that plaintiffs would be forced to underwrite abortifacients – drugs that kill human beings, such as the so-called “morning-after pill” and “Ella” – would put the lie to the stated ground on which a decisive plurality of Justices affirmed the right of citizens, whose values fall on the opposite side of the moral spectrum from plaintiffs’, to choose to abort prenatal human beings, as follows: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). The fundamental liberties of citizens must surely encompass defining a concept of the meaning and mystery of human life that – in consonance with the resounding
3

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:61
words of the Declaration of Independence – affirms a “right to life” that is “inalienable,” and thus protected against any government fiat to the contrary.
3. By reason of their religious conviction the Yeps sincerely believe that they cannot facilitate access to, subsidize, or materially cooperate with the provision of the offensive drugs or services described herein without breaching their solemn and sacred obligations to God, betraying their professed religious faith, and disserving the best interests of – as well as risking serious physical and/or spiritual injury to – their fellow human beings.
4. The Yeps own and control the corporate plaintiff, Triune Health Group, Inc., an Illinois corporation (“Triune Health Group” or “Triune”), and they wish to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith relating to the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the individual, and the institution of marriage. They believe that their religious faith, which shapes and determines their understanding of the importance and meaning of their lives, must inform all of their actions, including their actions as directors and officers of Triune Health Group, in order for them to live fully integrated lives which provide for Christian witness to those around them.
5. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to secure judicial review of the federal defendants’ violations of constitutional and statutory provisions in connection with the defendants’ promulgation and implementation of certain regulations adopted under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the PPACA”). They seek review, specifically, of those regulations purporting to mandate that employers include in their employee group health benefit plans coverage for drugs and services that are so wholly at odds with their religious and moral values and sincere religious beliefs and sacred commitments.
6. Plaintiffs ask the court for declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of the
4

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:62
Final Rule confirmed and promulgated by the federal defendants on February 15, 2012, mandating that group health plans include coverage, without cost sharing, for “all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (hereafter, “the Mandate” or “the Final Rule” or “the Mandate/Rule”), 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 found at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines. In addition, plaintiffs seek relief from the operation of Illinois state law, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4 and 5/356m, which requires that, in order to provide accident and health benefits for their employees, the insurance purchased by plaintiffs must include provisions for drugs and services that plaintiffs cannot make available to their employees without contravening the plaintiffs’ sincere religious convictions.
7. Plaintiffs contend that by requiring them to provide employees with access to drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincere religious convictions, these federal and state laws operate together to violate their legal rights, including the fundamental rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Illinois Constitution of 1970, as well as their rights under other federal and state laws.
Jurisdiction and Venue 8. This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1361, and 1367, as this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States or under state laws giving rise to claims that form part of the same essential underlying case or controversy. This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§2201,
5

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:63
2202 and 42 U.S.C. §2000bb-1. 9. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1), as the
plaintiffs reside within this district. The Parties
10. Plaintiff Christopher Yep is an individual and a citizen of the State of Illinois and the United States.
11. Plaintiff Mary Anne Yep is an individual and a citizen of the State of Illinois and the United States.
12. The Yeps own and control Plaintiff Triune Health Group, an Illinois for-profit corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business situated at Oakbrook, IL within the Northern District of Illinois.
13. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is an agency of the United States, and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule.
14. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is Secretary of HHS and is named as a party defendant in her official capacity.
15. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule.
16. Defendant Timothy F. Geithner is Secretary of the Treasury and is named as a party in his official capacity.
17. Defendant United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) is an agency of the United States and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the federal Mandate/Final Rule.
6

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:64
18. Defendant Hilda L. Solis is Secretary of DOL and is named as a party in her official capacity.
Factual Allegations 19. Plaintiff Triune is a corporation that specializes in facilitating the re-entry of injured workers into the workforce so that they can continue to live productive lives, enjoy the dignity of work, and achieve their personal goals. 20. Plaintiffs Christopher and Mary Anne Yep formed the corporation so that they could operate their business in a manner more consistent with their deeply held religious convictions, including their beliefs about the dignity of the human person and the dignity and central importance of the family. 21. The corporate name, “Triune,” reflects the Yeps’ religious conviction that a Triune God consisting of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, created human beings in His image and likeness, a truth originally reflected in their earlier symbol, namely, three interlocking rings. The name “Triune” also reflects the Yeps’ conviction that total health of the person has three dimensions, namely, physical, mental, and spiritual. Plaintiffs regard this as a fundamental truth about the nature of the human person and a truth that must be taken into account in connection with any effort to facilitate the full recovery of a person – physically, mentally, and spiritually. Thus from the earliest days of the Yeps’ efforts to run their business they have used as the corporate logo the circles, two on the bottom, one on top, united by a shared field, a longstanding representation of the Trinity. 22. As plaintiffs seek to facilitate the recovery of injured workers, they encourage their clients to assess their goals and determine the steps each needs to take in order to recover and live full and healthy lives. Plaintiffs believe that their efforts to help workers re-enter the
7

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:65
workforce and enjoy the dignity of work is vitally important to total rehabilitation of injured workers and must be the focus of any rehabilitation. These efforts are done both in obedience to and in furtherance of plaintiffs’ Catholic faith.
23. Plaintiffs serve clients of all faiths and do not use Catholic faith or beliefs as a qualification for client selection or service.
24. Plaintiffs in no way impose their religious views upon their clients. Quite the contrary, they endeavor to help each and every client determine for himself or herself what goals he or she needs to achieve in order to live a full and flourishing, truly human life.
25. Plaintiffs’ treatment of their more than fifty employees is also informed by their religious faith and their desire to treat each employee as a person made in the image and likeness of God. Plaintiffs strive to create a workplace where each employee is respected, treated fairly, receives a just wage, and enjoys accident and health benefits that allow their employees to live consistent with their human dignity.
26. Plaintiffs do not require employees to be Catholic or use it in any way as a qualification of employment. Plaintiffs currently employ and will continue to hire individuals of all faiths.
27. By employing more than fifty individuals, Triune is defined by the PPACA as a “large employer” subject to penalties if it does not provide the mandated coverage.
28. These penalties can amount to a crippling $100 per day per employee. 29. Because of the plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, Triune’s employee handbook thus proclaims its mission, as follows: “We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.” Likewise, Triune’s Mission and
8

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:66
Virtues Agreement states that “Triune Health Group is a mission and virtue based organization, which respects life from conception to natural death.”
30. Plaintiffs believe that Triune’s employees have acknowledged and expressed support for the plaintiffs’ efforts by voting Triune as one of the best places to work in the Chicago area, in 2010 and 2012, and further, by selecting Triune as “the Number One Place for Women to Work in 2012” by a prominent business publication in the Chicago metro area, namely, Crain’s Chicago Business. Plaintiffs are grateful to their employees for this acknowledgment of plaintiffs’ efforts to treat all of their employees with respect and dignity as creatures made in the image and likeness of a loving God.
31. From the first moment of their business operations the plaintiffs have tried to ensure that their operations are fully consistent with their sincere religious convictions.
32. Plaintiffs consider the provision of employee health insurance an integral component of furthering their corporate mission and values by treating their employees well. In addition, plaintiffs realize that providing some level of benefits is a practical business necessity because failure to do so would undermine their efforts to attract and retain quality employees which, in turn, would undermine their efforts to facilitate the recovery of injured workers.
33. Plaintiffs hold to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death as well as to the Church’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage and sexual morality. Plaintiffs believe abortion, contraception (including abortifacients), sterilization, and reproductive technologies that separate the unitive and procreative aspects of human sexuality or involve the destruction of human life are gravely wrong and sinful. They also believe such practices are harmful to the health and wellbeing of all human beings.
9

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:67
34. Plaintiffs believe that providing their employees with coverage for drugs and services that facilitate such immoral practices constitutes cooperation with evil that violates the laws of God. However, the only way in which Triune can provide accident and health benefits for its employees is by purchasing an insurance that covers such immoral practices.
35. Plaintiffs have no choice but to provide their employees with benefits required by state law, refuse to provide employee benefits, or go out of business.
36. Plaintiffs believe it would be immoral for them to strip their employees of benefits.
37. Plaintiffs believe that stripping their employees of benefits would cripple their business.
38. Plaintiffs do not wish to go out of business and do not believe they should be forced to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs by engaging in wrongful and sinful acts and shutting down their business.
39. Currently, Illinois state law requires that plaintiffs violate their religious convictions because the state mandates that any insurance policy purchased by Triune provide benefits to its employees to include the drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. More specifically, 215 ILCS 5/356z.4 requires Triune’s policy to provide coverage for contraception, including abortifacient contraception, and sterilizations. Additionally, 215 ILCS 5/356m requires Triune’s policy to provide coverage for reproductive technologies that are gravely at odds with plaintiffs’ religious beliefs and convictions.
40. Further, the recently enacted federal Mandate also requires employers to provide coverage for the full range of FDA approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and
10

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:68
also to provide education and counseling with respect to these matters for all women with reproductive capacity. More specifically, the federal Mandate requires the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs because it would require them to provide employees with contraception, including abortifacient contraception, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morningafter pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action, as well as sterilization.
41. Plaintiffs cannot avoid the state law mandates because they apply to any benefits policy issued in Illinois, where Triune is located, so Triune cannot secure the policy it needs to provide health benefits without inclusion of mandated benefits when facilitating in the provision of those benefits constitutes gravely wrong and sinful conduct.
42. Plaintiffs are subject to the federal Mandate that requires them to provide these benefits as well.
43. The plaintiffs do not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption contained in the Final Rule relating to the federal Mandate. See 45 CFR § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A) and (B) as Plaintiff A. is a for profit entity, B. hires many non-Catholics C. serves many non-Catholics and D. does not have a primary purpose of inculcating religious values..
44. Triune cannot take advantage of the “temporary enforcement safe harbor” as set forth by the federal defendants at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012) because it is a profit entity.
45. Triune cannot avoid the federal Mandate by employing the “grandfathering” provision or the temporary safe harbor because even before the federal Mandate took effect Illinois state law required coverage for the drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. Triune currently has coverage that meets this
11

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:69
requirement and thus is not grandfathered. 46. At present, the state and federal mandates described herein work together to force
plaintiffs to violate their conscience and betray their religious convictions by requiring that they provide their employees with benefits which the plaintiffs believe to be intrinsically wrongful, evil, and sinful. Yet, plaintiffs believe that they are morally obliged to provide their employees with health and accident insurance benefits.
47. Triune’s group health plan is due for renewal on January 1, 2013. 48. Plaintiffs wish to renew coverage for their employees by purchasing an employee group insurance policy while excluding coverage for drugs and services to which they object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. 49. Plaintiffs cannot purchase an insurance policy in order to provide benefits consistent with their religious convictions because the state mandate requires any policy issued to Triune to provide their employees with access to drugs and services plaintiffs believe to be wrongful and intrinsically evil as described herein. 50. Plaintiffs cannot provide benefits to their employees consistent with their religious convictions because the federal Mandate requires that plaintiffs provide their employees with access to drugs and services that plaintiffs believe to be wrongful and intrinsically evil. 51. Plaintiffs have fully researched the possibility of self-insurance to avoid state mandates, but this option is neither legally nor financially viable for them. 52. Consequently, the state and federal mandates at issue force plaintiffs to provide their employees with coverage of those services that plaintiffs consider wrongful, sinful and immoral.
12

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:70
53. Plaintiffs are subject to the federal Mandate and are confronted with a Hobson’s choice: either choose to comply with the federal mandate’s requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, or pay ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their business and force them to shut down.
54. The federal Mandate is not generally applicable to all business entities. 55. Grandfathered plans are exempt from the federal Mandate’s preventative care requirement. 56. The federal Mandate is not generally applicable to all religious entities. 57. Some religious sects are exempted from compliance with the federal Mandate 58. Some religious divisions are exempted from compliance with the federal Mandate. 59. The PPACA creates a system of individualized mandates, rather than an otherwise uniformly and generally applicable governmental mandate, because it allows discretionary compliance waivers. 60. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the federal defendants have already granted numerous waivers from compliance with the federal governmental Mandate to selected business entities for purely secular reasons. 61. Entities granted waivers of the federal Mandate do not have to provide coverage mandated by HHS. 62. Entities granted waivers of the federal Mandate do not have to provide coverage for contraception, including abortifacient contraception, and sterilization. 63. The federal Mandate challenged here does not advance a compelling interest. 64. The federal Mandate challenged here is neither narrowly tailored nor the least
13

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:71
restrictive means available to advance any interests the government may assert. 65. The federal Mandate challenged here can be advanced by other means that are
narrowly tailored and do not burden plaintiffs by requiring them to engage in conduct contrary to their religious conviction.
66. Failure to comply with the federal Mandate subjects an employer to liability for fines.
67. Failure to comply with the federal Mandate subjects an employer to liability for penalties.
68. The federal Mandate has the force of law. 69. No monetary damages could adequately compensate plaintiffs for the suppression of their constitutional rights stemming from their having been compelled to engage in acts contrary to their religious and moral beliefs and their accompanying statement of corporate mission. Thus an award of injunctive relief is necessary to avert and prevent plaintiffs from suffering immediate, grave, and ongoing illegal and irreparable harm. 70. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs will continue to suffer harm by reason of the federal and state mandates that force the plaintiffs to engage in conduct they believe to be intrinsically evil by providing their employees with access to drugs and benefits to which the plaintiffs object by reason of their sincerely held religious convictions. 71. Plaintiffs have filed suit because they cannot continue to comply with these immoral mandates, which they believe to be illegal and unconstitutional, and must seek relief to escape the dilemma in which they find themselves.
14

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:72
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Count I
Violation of the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act 72. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 73. The federal Mandate/Final Rule, imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free and robust exercise of their religious faith and convictions by coercing them to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial, prohibitively expensive penalties to the government – potentially forcing them out of business. 74. The federal Mandate/Final Rule furthers no compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored to any compelling interest, and is not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest. 75. The Mandate/Final Rule and the defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violate rights secured to the plaintiffs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb, et seq. 76. Absent declaratory and injunctive relief, the plaintiffs will be greatly, illegally, and irreparably harmed.
Count II Violation of 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Religious Liberty & Establishment
77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 78. The federal Mandate/Final Rule imposes a substantial burden on plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing them to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial, prohibitively expensive penalties to the government – potentially forcing them out of business.
15

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:73
79. Operating a business in accordance with one’s religious beliefs is a form of religious exercise.
80. The federal legislation and implementing regulations require an intrusive inquiry into whether entities are “religious” enough to qualify for an exemption and defines religious practice in a limited sense that deprives citizens of their right to lead their lives in accordance with their religious convictions by purporting to dictate when, and under what circumstances, citizens can conduct their affairs consistent with their faith. Moreover, said federal law and the regulatory Mandates handed down thereunder are not neutral laws of general applicability inasmuch as they are honeycombed with exceptions, waivers, and safe harbors. Thus while the Mandate’s applicability to plaintiffs entails a severe curtailment and suppression of the plaintiffs’ rights to free and robust exercise of their religious faith, those organizations that fall within the federal exceptions or are granted waivers suffer no such curtailment or suppression of their rights.
81. Additionally all employers with fewer than fifty employees are exempt. 82. Thus the Mandate is neither “neutral” nor “generally applicable.” 83. Quite the contrary, the federal Mandate discriminates among religious groups and other citizens by providing exemptions to some but not to others. 84. The Mandate discriminates among religious believers by providing exemptions to some but not others based on the government’s unduly narrow and crabbed concept of what it means to practice religion, contrary to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and also based on the government’s manifest preference for certain religious denominations, and the tenets they embrace, and its disfavor of other denominations, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
16

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:74
85. The Mandate grants different levels of importance and accommodation to both specific religious beliefs, as against other beliefs, and to specific religious groups and individuals, as against other groups and individuals with the same faith and beliefs.
86. The Mandate/Final Rule, moreover, furthers no compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored to advance the government’s asserted interest, and is not the least restrictive means of advancing the government’s asserted interest.
87. The federal Mandate/Final Rule and the defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violate plaintiffs’ right to religious liberty as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and also infringes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the government has an interest in the provision of contraception, there are many ways to accomplish this goal without burdening plaintiffs’ religious liberty.
88. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs will be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
Count III Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Free Speech Clause
89. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 90. Plaintiffs believe that the aforementioned services covered by the federal Mandate/Final Rule are intrinsically wrongful, evil, and harmful to individuals who use them. 91. The Mandate/Final Rule and state law mandates compel the Plaintiffs to pay for and/or provide their employees with education and counseling related to contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Such education and counseling does not condemn these things as intrinsically wrongful, evil as well as harmful to individuals but instead treats such drugs and
17

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:75
services as morally licit and beneficial. As a consequence, plaintiffs must stifle their own fundamental, conscientious beliefs to conform their speech to fit the government’s mold.
92. The federal and state defendants’ actions violate the plaintiffs’ free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by forcing plaintiffs to sponsor and pay for speech advancing views with which plaintiffs deeply disagree, as those views are wholly at odds with their conscientious religious and moral principles and convictions.
93. The Mandate/Final Rule and state law mandates do not further a compelling interest, are not narrowly tailored to advance the governmental interest, and are not the least restrictive means of advancing the governmental interest.
94. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs will continue to be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
Count IV Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706 95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 96. The Mandate/Final Rule is contrary to section 1303(b)(1)(A) of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), Pub. L. 111-148 § 1303, 124 Stat. 119, 168 (to be codified at 42 U.S.C. §18023(b)(1)(A)), which provides that “nothing in this title . . . 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.” The federal Mandate requires provision of abortifacients, drugs that will result in abortions, contrary to this statutory section. 97. 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), states that “[n]one of the funds made available in this Act [making
18

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:76
appropriations for Defendants Department of Labor and 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.” And the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), provides that “No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the performance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
98. The Mandate/Final Rule is thus contrary to existing law, and therefore it should be judicially reviewed and declared void, pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. §706(2), as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, limitations, or short of statutory right. The Mandate/Final Rule should also be struck down as having been promulgated without observance of procedure required by law, namely, 5 U.S.C. §553, in that no notice or comment period was provided before the federal defendants promulgated said Mandate/Final Rule, as legally required. The federal defendants disregarded and dispensed with these procedural protections requiring notice and comment on the part of interested parties without legally sufficient cause.
99. The federal defendants essentially delegated their rule making authority to a nongovernmental organization so as to circumvent the APA and in violation of the Act.
100. The federal defendants acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, furthermore, when they ignored comments indicating that abortifacient, contraceptive, and sterilization services, as well as counseling and education for these services, could not reasonably be viewed
19

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:77
as preventative care. There is no sign that the many comments detailing these facts were given any actual consideration.
101. Thus the defendants’ actions should be set aside, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §706(2), on multiple grounds.
102. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs have been and will continue to be greatly, irreparably and illegally harmed.
Count V Violation of the Separation of Powers 103. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 104. In addition to violating the APA and provisions of the Act, Defendants have violated the Separation of Powers, as defined by the United States Constitution. 105. The legislature was clear in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that abortion would not be covered, but the executive branch has disregarded this clear limit by the legislature by including abortion services in “preventative services” for women. 106. In addition to violating section 1303(b)(1)(A) of the PPACA, the current definition of preventative services violates the authority given to the HHS by directly contravening the desires of the legislators who passed the Act. 107. Senator Mikulski, author of the Women’s Preventative Health Care Amendment to the PPACA stated on the Senate floor while defending her amendment that it would not cover abortion “in any way”. 108. Decisive support from Pro-life Representatives like Rep. Bart Stupak was only gained when an executive order ensuring that abortion would not be covered was agreed upon. 109. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate/Final Rule, plaintiffs will continue to be greatly, illegally and irreparably harmed.
20

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:78

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court:

A. Declare that the federal Mandate at issue here and defendants’ enforcement

thereof violate and infringe upon the plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or statutory rights as

alleged herein;

B. Declare that Triune is authorized to purchase, and that an insurer is authorized to

issue to Triune, a policy that excludes benefits to which the plaintiffs object by reason of

their sincerely held, conscientious religious beliefs and convictions;

C. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from

enforcing the federal laws alleged to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional and/or statutory

rights;

D. Award the plaintiffs nominal damages as well as their costs and reasonable

attorney’s fees as may be authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988, and any other applicable law

authorizing such fees; and,

E. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Submitted this 15th day of October, 2012.

/s/ Thomas Brejcha /s/ Patrick Gillen* /s/ Samuel B. Casey* /s/ David B. Waxman* /s/ Peter Breen /s/ Jason Craddock Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Of Counsel: Thomas Brejcha Patrick Gillen Peter Breen Marian Haney

*Pro hac vice applications pending

21

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 21 Filed: 10/15/12 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:79
Jason Craddock Thomas More Society 29 South LaSalle St. – Suite 440 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel. 312-782-1680 Fax 312-782-1887 Samuel B. Casey David B. Waxman JUBILEE CAMPAIGN, Law of Life Project 801 G. Street, N.W. Suite 521 Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel. 202-587-5652 Fax. 703-349-7323
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Peter Breen, an attorney of record for plaintiffs, hereby certify that on October 15, 2012, I served on counsel for all parties a true and correct copy of this amended complaint by filing same using the CM/ECF electronic filing system of the Clerk of Court.
/s/ Peter Breen
22

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 52 Filed: 02/06/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:558
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1
Eastern Division

Triune Health Group, Inc., et al. v.
United States Department of Health & Human Services, et al.

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 1:12−cv−06756
Honorable Amy J. St. Eve

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, February 6, 2013:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 2/14/13 is stricken and reset to 4/17/2013 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice(kef, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 50 Filed: 01/03/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:552

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

)

CHRISTOPHER YEP, MARY ANNE YEP, )

AND TRIUNE HEALTH GROUP, LTD., an )

Illinois corporation,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v.

)

)

Civil Action No. 12-cv-06756

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (HHS);

)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official

)

capacity as SECRETARY OF THE U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN )

SERVICES; UNITED STATES

)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;

)

TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official

)

capacity as SECRETARY OF THE U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

LABOR; HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official

)

capacity as SECRETARY OF THE U.S.

)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

)

) Defendants. )

)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER This matter having come before the C ourt on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #36), and this Court having reviewed the pleadings, the Court hereby grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Based on the binding precedent established by Korte et al. v. Sebelius et al ., No. 12-3841 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2012), Plaintiffs ha ve satisfied all of the requirements for

1

Case: 1:12-cv-06756 Document #: 50 Filed: 01/03/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:553 preliminary injunctive relief as set f orth in the order of the Court issued on January 3, 2013. (Doc. # 49).
Accordingly, the Defen dants, their agen ts, officers, and employees are hereby ENJOINED from any application or enforcem ent of any requirem ent that Plaintiffs provide contraception, abortion, sterilization, abortifacients, or related education and counseling in its em ployee health plans contrary to thei r religious objections. This injunction includes the substantive requirem ents imposed in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), Pub. L. 111-148, §1563(e)-(f), the applicati on of the penalties found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D & 4980H and 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and any determination that any requirement is applicable to the Plaintiffs. It is so ORDERED, this 3rd day of January, 2013.
_____________________________ Honorable Amy J. St. Eve, U.S.D.J.
2

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 1 of 16
VALDEZ
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−06756

Triune Health Group, Inc. et al v. United States Department of Health & Human Services et al Assigned to: Honorable Andrea R. Wood Case in other court: 13−01478 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/22/2012 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Triune Health Group, Inc. an Illinois corporation

represented by Thomas L. Brejcha , Jr. Thomas More Society 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 603 Chicago, IL 60603 (312)782−1680 Email: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org TERMINATED: 04/10/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

David B. Waxman Jubilee Campaign− Law Of Life Project 801 G. Street, N.W. Suite 521 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 587−5652 Email: dbwaxman@lawoflifeproject.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Breen Thomas More Society 309 W Washington St Ste 1250 Chicago, IL 60606 312 782 1680 Email: pbreen@thomasmoresociety.org TERMINATED: 04/10/2014

Samuel B. Casey Jubilee Campaign− Law Of Life Project 801 G. Street, N.W. Suite 521 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 587−5652 Email: sbcasey@lawoflifeproject.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Christopher Yep

represented by Kevin E. White Kevin E. White & Associates 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 5210 Chicago, IL 60606 (312)606−8602 Email: kwhite@kevinedwardwhiteassociates.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas L. Brejcha , Jr.

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 2 of 16

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

David B. Waxman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Breen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2014

Samuel B. Casey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mary Anne Yep

represented by Kevin E. White (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas L. Brejcha , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY

David B. Waxman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Christopher Breen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/10/2014

Samuel B. Casey (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Kathleen Sebelius in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

represented by Bradley Philip Humphreys U. S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Suite 7219 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 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202 305 8902

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 3 of 16

Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL − Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of the 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

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Timothy F. Geithner in his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the 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

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) 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

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Hilda L. Solis in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor

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

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 4 of 16

Defendant Illinois Department of Insurance TERMINATED: 10/15/2012
Defendant United States Department of Health & Human Services
Defendant Andrew W Boron in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance TERMINATED: 10/15/2012
Amicus American Civil Liberties Union

Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo Illinois Attorney General's Office (100 W) 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 (312)814−7198 Email: tioppolo@atg.state.il.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni M. Malowitz Illinois State Police 1941 W. Roosevelt Rd. Chicago, IL 60608 312 433 8000 ext. 2043 Email: marni_malowitz@isp.state.il.us 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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Thomas A. Ioppolo (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marni M. Malowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lorie Chaiten Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 150 N Michigan Ave Ste 600 Chicago, IL 60601−7570 (312) 201−9740 Email: lchaiten@aclu−il.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 5 of 16

Amicus
American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

Brigitte Amiri American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549−2633 Email: bamiri@aclu.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah A Bartelt Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc. 180 N. Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 201−9740 Email: lbartelt@aclu−il.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lorie Chaiten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brigitte Amiri (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leah A Bartelt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/22/2012
08/22/2012 08/22/2012 08/22/2012 08/23/2012 08/24/2012
08/24/2012 08/28/2012 08/28/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Mary Anne Yep, Christopher Yep, Triune Health Group, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752−7477655.(Brejcha, Thomas) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Brejcha, Thomas) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep by Thomas L. Brejcha, Jr (Brejcha, Thomas) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep by Peter Christopher Breen (Breen, Peter) (Entered: 08/22/2012)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. (daj, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
5 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Initial status hearing set for 10/3/12 at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 1241. Parties should refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by 9/28/12 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
SUMMONS Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney, and U.S. Attorney General (jn, ) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−7496906. (Waxman, David) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−7497000. (Casey, Samuel) (Entered: 08/28/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 6 of 16

08/30/2012 08/30/2012 08/30/2012
09/06/2012 09/06/2012 09/06/2012 09/06/2012 09/11/2012 09/11/2012 10/01/2012 10/01/2012 10/03/2012
10/04/2012
10/15/2012
11/09/2012
11/09/2012 11/09/2012

8 refiling of Document 6 − pro hac vice for Waxman by Triune Health Group, Inc. (Waxman, David) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
9 refiling of Document 7 − pro hac vice for Casey by Triune Health Group, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 continuation page − courts admitted)(Waxman, David) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
10 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: David Waxman's and Samuel Casey's motions for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep and Triune Health Group, Inc 6 7 are granted. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
11 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for leave to appear as Appearance of Attorney, David Waxman (Waxman, David) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
12 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for leave to appear as Attorney, Samuel B. Casey (Waxman, David) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
13 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. by David B. Waxman refiling of Document 11 (Waxman, David) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep by Samuel B. Casey refiling of Document 12 (Casey, Samuel) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
15 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Andrew W Boron, Illinois Department of Insurance by Marni M. Malowitz (Malowitz, Marni) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
16 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Andrew W Boron, Illinois Department of Insurance by Thomas A. Ioppolo (Ioppolo, Thomas) (Entered: 09/11/2012)
17 STATUS Report by Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep (Brejcha, Thomas) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
18 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 10/3/12 is stricken and reset to 10/4/2012 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
19 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury by Bradley Philip Humphreys (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
20 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Status hearing held on 10/4/2012 and continued to 11/14/2012 at 08:30 AM. Plaintiffs' amended complaint shall be filed by 10/15/12. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by 11/9/12. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
21 AMENDED complaint by Mary Anne Yep, Christopher Yep, Triune Health Group, Inc. against Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury and terminating Andrew W Boron (in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Insurance) and Illinois Department of Insurance (Breen, Peter) (Entered: 10/15/2012)
22 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury for leave to file excess pages in support of Motion to Dismiss (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
23 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages, 22 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/14/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
24 MOTION by Defendants United States Department of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Health & Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit A − Articles of Incorporation)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 7 of 16

11/09/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012
11/15/2012
11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/28/2012
11/29/2012
11/29/2012 12/12/2012

25 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion to dismiss, 24 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/14/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
26 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752−7752824. for amici ACLU and ACLU of Illinois (Amiri, Brigitte) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
27 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Parties American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinios by Leah A Bartelt (Bartelt, Leah) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
28 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus Parties American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinios by Lorie Ann Chaiten (Chaiten, Lorie) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
29 MOTION by Amicus Parties American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinios for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Curiae Brief)(Chaiten, Lorie) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
30 NOTICE of Motion by Lorie Ann Chaiten for presentment of motion for leave to file, 29 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 11/19/2012 at 08:30 AM. (Chaiten, Lorie) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
31 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing held on 11/14/2012 and continued to 2/14/13 at 8:30 a.m. Defendants' motion for leave to file memorandum in excess pages 22 is granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss 24 is entered. Response, up to 45 pages, shall be filed by 11/28/12. Reply, up to 25 pages, shall be filed by 12/12/12. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
32 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: ACLU's motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae in support of defendants' motion to dismiss 29 is granted. Counsel shall separately file the amicus curiae brief upon receipt of this order. Plaintiff's response shall be filed by 11/28/12. Reply by 12/12/12. No appearance is required on the 11/19/12 notice date. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
33 BRIEF MEMORANDUM by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Illinios in support of motion to dismiss, 24 as Amicus Curiae (Chaiten, Lorie) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
34 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Brigitte Amiri's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union 26 is granted. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
35 ATTORNEY Appearance for Amicus American Civil Liberties Union by Brigitte Amiri pro hac vice (Amiri, Brigitte) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
36 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for preliminary injunction (Attachments: # 1 Supplement PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration)(Waxman, David) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
37 AMENDED motion for preliminary injunction, 36 Refiling of Document 36−1 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (fixing formatting issues with original Tables of Contents and Authorities) (Waxman, David) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
38 NOTICE of SUPPLEMENT to motion for preliminary injunction, 36 NOTICE TO THE COURT PROVIDING CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Waxman, David) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
39 REPLY by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to MOTION by Defendants United States Department of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Health & Human Services,

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 8 of 16

12/19/2012 12/21/2012 12/21/2012 12/22/2012 12/24/2012 12/26/2012 12/28/2012
12/31/2012 12/31/2012 01/03/2013 01/03/2013 02/03/2013
02/06/2013

Kathleen Sebelius to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for 24 and in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/12/2012)
40 REPLY by Triune Health Group, Inc. to reply to response to motion,, 39 in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, responding to Defendants' Reply in Opposition (Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
41 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for temporary restraining order including proposed order (Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
42 SUPPLEMENT to motion for preliminary injunction, 36 NOTICE TO THE COURT PROVIDING CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
43 OPPOSITION by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury in Opposition to motion for temporary restraining order 41 (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/22/2012)
44 REPLY by Triune Health Group, Inc. to memorandum in opposition to motion, 43 in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Pending Ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Hobby Lobby − 10th Cir. Order)(Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/24/2012)
45 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order 41 is denied. [For further details, see minute order.] Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
46 SUPPLEMENT to motion to dismiss, 24 , reply to response to motion,, 39 of Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius − Justice Sotomayor In Chambers Decision, # 2 Exhibit Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius − Order Denying Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj., # 3 Exhibit Grote Indus., Inc. v. Sebelius − Order Denying Pls.' Mot. for Prelim. Inj.)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
47 SUPPLEMENT to motion for preliminary injunction, 36 NOTICE TO THE COURT PROVIDING CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Autocam Order 12.28.12, # 2 Korte Order 12.28.12)(Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
48 SUPPLEMENT to motion for preliminary injunction, 36 NOTICE TO THE COURT PROVIDING CITATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY (Attachments: # 1 Monaghan Order 12.30.12)(Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/31/2012)
49 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction 36 . [For further details, see minute order.] Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
50 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 1/3/2013:Mailed notice(kef, ) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
51 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 11/14/12 before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. Court Reporter Contact Information: Joseph Rickhoff, 312−435−5562, joseph_rickhoff@ilnd.uscourts.gov. <P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 2/25/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/6/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/6/2013. (Rickhoff, Joseph) (Entered: 02/03/2013)
52 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 2/14/13 is stricken and reset to 4/17/2013 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 02/06/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 9 of 16

03/04/2013
03/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/05/2013 03/06/2013 03/11/2013
03/11/2013 03/18/2013 03/25/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013 04/02/2013
04/02/2013
04/02/2013 07/15/2013 09/13/2013 09/26/2013 09/26/2013

53 NOTICE of appeal by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury regarding orders 50 (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
54 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (smm) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
55 TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal, 53 . Notified counsel (smm) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
56 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal, 53 ; USCA Case No. 13−1478. (ao,) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
57 NOTICE of Correction regarding 56 . (ao,) (Entered: 03/06/2013)
58 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to stay district court proceedings (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
59 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion to stay, 58 before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 3/18/2013 at 08:30 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
60 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve:Motion hearing held on 3/18/2013. Defendants' motion to stay 58 is entered. Response shall be filed by 3/25/13. Reply by 4/4/13. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
61 RESPONSE by Triune Health Group, Inc.in Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to stay district court proceedings 58 (Waxman, David) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
62 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal 53 (USCA no. 13−1478). (smm) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
63 USCA RECEIVED on 3/26/13 the long record regarding notice of appeal, 53 . (smm) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
64 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: The Court grants Defendants' motion to stay 58 . The Court will stay the proceedings until the Seventh Circuit issues a decision in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12−3841 (7th Cir.), and Grote v. Sebelius, No. 12−1077 (7th Cir.). Status hearing set for 4/17/13 is stricken and reset to 7/16/13 at 8:30 a.m. [For further details, see minute order.] Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
65 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Defendants' motion to dismiss 24 is denied without prejudice in light of the appeals in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12−3841 (7th Cir.) and Grote v. Sebelius, No. 12−1077 (7th Cir.). The Court will give the parties sufficient time to refile the motion once the Seventh Circuit provides additional guidance in this area. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
66 USCA RECEIVED on 3/26/13 the long record appeal no. 13−1478. (ao,) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
67 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 7/16/13 is stricken and reset to 9/16/2013 at 08:30 AM. Stay remains in place. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
68 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 9/16/13 is stricken and reset to 10/30/2013 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
69 NOTICE by Thomas L. Brejcha, Jr of Change of Address (Brejcha, Thomas) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
70 NOTICE by Peter Christopher Breen of Change of Address (Breen, Peter) (Entered: 09/26/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 10 of 16

10/07/2013 10/17/2013
10/30/2013 11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/20/2013
11/27/2013 12/03/2013 12/11/2013

71 GENERAL ORDER 13−0018 dated 10/7/2013: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, effective October 1, 2013, that all civil litigation involving as a party the United States of America, is immediately suspended, postponed and held in abeyance continuing for a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this General Order (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by Chief Judge Castillo. Mailed notice (jmp, ) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
72 GENERAL ORDER 13−0019 dated 10/17/13: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the stay entered by General Order 13−0018 is hereby lifted, and any and all deadlines in the affected civil litigation (whether established by order, rule, or agreement), including but not limited to any scheduled discovery and pleading dates, are extended by 28 days. The Court warns litigants that this General Order does not purport to affect rights to or deadlines concerning appeal from any decision of this Court. Any litigant affected by this General Order may see relief from the order by motion. Trial dates in the affected cases will stand, although they may need to be adjusted in individual cases to account for the extension of other dates. The Court may, in any particular case, vary the effect or operation of this General Order by a separate ruling. (For Further Details See Attached Order). Signed by Chief Judge Castillo. (et, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
73 MINUTE entry before Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Case called for status hearing on 10/30/13. Neither side appeared. Status hearing set for 12/9/2013 at 08:30 AM.Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 10/30/2013)
74 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: It appearing that, pursuant to the Executive Committee Order entered on November 5, 2013, the civil cases on the attached list have been selected for reassignment to form the initial calendar of the Honorable Andrea R. Wood, therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the attached list of 300 cases be reassigned to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order shall become effective on Tuesday, November 19, 2013. Case reassigned to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood for all further proceedings. Signed by Executive Committee on 11/18/2013. (ef, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
75 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve: Status hearing set for 12/9/13 is stricken. Mailed notice (kef, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
76 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: This case has been reassigned to the calendar of District Judge Andrea R. Wood. All previously set status dates and motion hearing dates are hereby stricken. The Court will set a date for a reassignment status conference by separate order. The parties are directed not to notice any motions for presentment prior to the reassignment status conference without first contacting chambers. Inquiries should be directed to the courtroom deputy before the motion is filed. Unless otherwise ordered by this Court, all other hearing dates, deadlines and schedules in effect as of the date of this Order remain in effect. To help the Court learn about the case, counsel for the parties shall confer and then prepare and file a joint Reassignment Status Report, not to exceed five pages, within 14 days of the entry of this Order. If defendants counsel has not yet filed an appearance, the Reassignment Status Report should be prepared by plaintiffs counsel. A template for the Reassignment Status Report, setting forth the information required, is attached to this Order and can be found on the Courts website at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under District Judges, Judge Andrea R. Wood. (For further details, see attachment.) Mailed notice (Attachments: # 1 Reassignment Status Report) (ac, ) (Entered: 11/20/2013)
77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 12/11/2013 at 09:00 a.m in courtroom 1725. Parties may notice motions for presentment at that time. Written notice of the intent to present a motion must be filed and served on all parties at least three business days in advance of the hearing. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
78 STATUS Report by Triune Health Group, Inc. (Waxman, David) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
79 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 4/10/2014 at 9:00 a.m. The case will remained stayed for the reasons stated in the record. Should any issues arise that need to be addressed by this Court prior to the next status date, the parties shall contact this courts courtroom deputy for an earlier status date. (ac, ) (Entered: 12/15/2013)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 11 of 16

04/09/2014 04/09/2014 04/10/2014
04/10/2014 06/20/2014 07/02/2014
08/04/2014 08/18/2014
09/04/2014 09/04/2014 09/18/2014
09/24/2014
11/24/2014 11/24/2014

80 MOTION by counsel for Plaintiffs Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep to withdraw as attorney (Breen, Peter) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
81 NOTICE of Motion by Peter Christopher Breen for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 80 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 4/17/2014 at 09:00 AM. (Breen, Peter) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
82 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held; continued to 6/26/2014 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw attorney 80 is granted. Attorneys Thomas Brejcha and Peter Breen are given leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. Motion hearing date of 4/17/2014 is stricken. Mailed notice (ntf, ) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
83 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Christopher Yep, Mary Anne Yep by Kevin E. White. (vcf, ) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
84 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, status hearing set for 6/26/2014 is stricken. Status hearing set for 7/2/2014 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice ( ac, ) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held; continued to 8/20/2014 at 9:00 a.m. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, by no later than 8/4/2014, the Government shall file a status report to inform the Court how the Government intends to proceed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 07/03/2014)
86 STATUS Report by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: The Court having reviewed the status report filed by the United States 86 , the status hearing previously set for 8/20/2014 is stricken and reset for 9/24/2014 at 9:00 a.m. By no later than 9/18/2014, the Government shall file a status report to update the Court regarding the Government's position on how it intends to proceed in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
88 LETTER from the USCA regarding the record on appeal in USCA no. 13−1478 consisting of: no record to be returned. (rm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
89 MANDATE of USCA dated 09/04/2014 regarding notice of appeal, 53 ; USCA No. 13−1478: IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). (rm, ) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
90 STATUS Report and Notice of Consent to Injunction and Judgment by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
91 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held; continued to 12/2/2014 at 9:00 a.m. The Court declines to enter the Government's proposed consent judgment for the reasons stated on the record. Defendants shall file their answer to the complaint by 11/24/2014. The Preliminary Injunction Order entered on 1/3/2013 50 shall remain in place. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 09/27/2014)
92 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury for extension of time to file answer (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
93 NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, 92 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 12/2/2014 at 09:00 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/24/2014)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 12 of 16

12/01/2014
12/11/2014 01/15/2015 01/15/2015 01/16/2015 02/23/2015 02/23/2015 02/24/2015
03/13/2015 04/01/2015 05/13/2015 06/02/2015 06/24/2015

94 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Defendants' unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint 92 is granted. Defendants shall have until 12/8/2014 to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. The motion presentment and status hearing set for 12/2/2014 is stricken. Status hearing set for 12/11/2014 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
95 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Case called for status; no one appeared. Status hearing set for 1/16/2015 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
96 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to continue status conference, filed jointly by the parties (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
97 Joint NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion to continue, 96 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 1/20/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
98 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: The parties' joint motion to continue status conference 96 is granted. The status hearing set for 1/16/2015 is stricken. This case is reset for a status hearing on 2/24/2015 at 9:00 a.m. The motion presentment date of 2/20/015 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
99 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to continue status conference, filed jointly by the parties (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
100 Joint NOTICE of Motion by Bradley Philip Humphreys for presentment of motion to continue, 99 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 2/26/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
101 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: The parties' Joint Motion to Continue Status Conference 99 is granted. The status hearing set for 2/24/2015 is stricken. The motion presentment date of 2/26/2015 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Status hearing set for 4/1/2015 at 9:00 a.m. No further continuances of the status hearing date will be granted without appearance by the parties. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 02/25/2015)
102 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury by Michelle Renee Bennett (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
103 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Plaintiff informed the Court that it intends to draft an alternative proposed order for injunctive relief. For reasons stated on the record, Defendants' obligation to answer the complaint shall remain stayed until the next status hearing. Status hearing set for 5/13/2015 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
104 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The status hearing set in open court for 6/3/2015 is stricken and reset for 6/2/2015 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
105 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held and continued to 6/24/2015 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
106 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The parties shall file their briefs in support of their respective positions regarding the entry of a permanent injunction by consent by 7/15/2015. Responses shall be filed by 7/29/2015. Status hearing set for 9/2/2015 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 06/25/2015)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 13 of 16

07/15/2015 07/15/2015 07/16/2015
07/22/2015
07/22/2015 07/22/2015 08/05/2015
08/05/2015 08/18/2015 08/18/2015 09/02/2015
09/18/2015 10/05/2015
10/19/2015

107 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury for extension of time (Agreed Motion) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
108 (Agreed Motion) NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of extension of time, 107 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 7/21/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
109 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Defendants' Agreed Motion to reset briefing schedule 107 is granted. The parties shall file their briefs in support of their respective positions regarding the entry of a permanent injunction by consent by 7/22/2015. Responses shall be filed by 8/5/2015. The motion presentment date of 7/21/2015 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
110 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order : Defs.' Proposed Injunction & Judgment, # 2 Exhibit : Permanent Injunctions in Other For−Profit Cases)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
111 NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief, 110 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 9/2/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
112 MEMORANDUM by Triune Health Group, Inc. Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Status Report and Notice of Consent to Injunction and Judgment (White, Kevin) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
113 RESPONSE by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to memorandum 112 (Defs.' Mem. in Opp'n to Pls.' Proposed Permanent Inj. & J.) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
114 REPLY by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. to Defendants' Notice of Consent to Injunction (Now Defendants' Motion for Entry, etc.) (White, Kevin) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
115 MOTION by Plaintiffs Triune Health Group, Inc., Christopher Yep, Mary Anne YepSettlement Conference/ Pre−Trial Pursuant to Local Rule 5/ Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
116 Plaintiffs' NOTICE of Motion by Kevin E. White for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 115 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 9/2/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 08/18/2015)
117 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion and Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs' motion for pre−trial settlement conference 115 is taken under advisement. Status hearing set for 10/20/2015 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
118 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of filing of Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit March for Life Opinion, # 2 Exhibit March for Life Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
119 NOTICE by Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Ozinga Order (ECF No. 53), # 2 Ozinga Injunction & Judgment (ECF No. 54))(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: On the Court's own motion, the status hearing set for 10/20/2015 is stricken and reset for 11/20/2015 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 10/19/2015)

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 14 of 16

11/18/2015 12/02/2015 12/02/2015 12/03/2015 01/13/2016 02/09/2016 03/30/2016
04/20/2016 04/20/2016 05/23/2016 05/23/2016 06/01/2016 07/12/2016 07/20/2016 07/22/2016 08/24/2016

121 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: On the Court's own motion, status hearing set for 11/20/2015 is stricken and reset for 12/10/2015 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
122 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to reset Status Hearing Set For December 10, 2015 (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
123 NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of motion to reset, 122 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 12/8/2015 at 09:00 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
124 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Defendants' Motion to reset status hearing 122 is granted. The motion presentment date of 12/8/2015 is stricken. Parties need not appear. The Status hearing set for 12/10/2015 is stricken ans reset for 1/14/2016 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
125 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: On the Court's motion, the status hearing set for 1/14/2015 is stricken. A new status date will be set by separate order. Mailed notice (vcf, ) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
126 NOTICE by Kevin E. White of Change of Address (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
127 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Defendants' motion for entry of permanent injunction and final judgment 110 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs' motion for a pretrial conference 115 is granted as follows. Status hearing set for 4/20/2016 at 11:00 AM. At the status hearing, the parties should be prepared to address (1) whether this Court should hold these proceedings in abeyance pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Ozinga v. Burwell, No. 15−3648, (2) whether Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief have been mooted by regulations applicable to their plans as of January 1, 2016; and (3) whether the aforementioned mootness issue and the parties' dispute regarding the scope of a permanent injunction may be properly resolved on the current record. Mailed notice (ao,) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
128 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 4/20/2016 at 11:00 is reset for 4/20/2016 at 10:00 AM. TIME CHANGE ONLY. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
129 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. The Court has taken under advisement the parties competing requests entry of permanent injunctive relief. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
130 NOTICE of Motion by Kevin E. White for presentment of before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 6/1/2016 at 09:00 AM. (White, Kevin) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
131 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc.Notice_Settlement Conference (Supplemental Authority) (White, Kevin) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
132 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's renewed motion for a settlement conference 131 is taken under advisement for the reasons stated on the record. Status hearing set for 7/13/2016 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
133 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 7/13/2016 is stricken and reset for 7/21/2016 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
134 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 7/21/2016 is stricken and reset for 8/24/2016 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
135 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Filing of Supplemental Authority (Wieland) (White, Kevin) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
136 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 8/24/2016 is stricken and reset for 9/21/2016 at 9:00 AM. The Court will issue a

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 15 of 16

09/13/2016 09/13/2016 09/14/2016 09/27/2016 11/02/2016
01/31/2017 04/11/2017 06/13/2017 08/15/2017 10/17/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/20/2017

written order regarding pending issues shortly. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
137 MOTION by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to reset September 21, 2016 Status Hearing (Unopposed Motion) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
138 NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of motion to reset, 137 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 9/20/2016 at 09:00 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
139 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Defendants' Motion to reset status hearing 137 is granted. Status hearing set for 9/21/2016 is stricken and reset for 9/27/2016 at 09:00 AM. The motion presentment date of 9/20/2016 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
140 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood:Status hearing held and continued to 11/2/2016 at 9:00 a.m. For the reasons stated in open court and on the record, Plaintiffs are given to 10/25/2016 to file an amended complaint, if needed. At the next status hearing, Defendants counsel shall orally report to the Court if they intend to answer or respond by motion.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
141 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Counsel for Plaintiff informed the Court that a second amended complaint will not be filed at this time and the case will proceed with the current amended complaint 21 . For the reasons stated on the record, discovery in this matter is stayed until further order of court. Status hearing set for 1/31/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
142 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussions held in open court and the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs motion for settlement conference 131 is denied without prejudice. Status hearing set for 4/11/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
143 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, the status hearing is continued to 6/13/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
144 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court and for the reasons stated on the record, the status hearing is continued to 8/15/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
145 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court and for the reasons stated on the record, the status hearing is continued to 10/17/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
146 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Pursuant to the discussion held in open court, Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' amended complaint by 12/1/2017. The parties shall file dispositive motions by 12/18/2017. Status hearing set for 12/20/2017 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
147 MOTION by Defendants United States Department of the Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Health & Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
148 NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction, 147 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 12/20/2017 at 09:00 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
149 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Motion and Status hearing held. The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 : Plaintiffs shall respond by 2/5/2018 and Defendants shall reply by 2/20/2018. Status hearing set for 4/24/2018 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered:

Case: 1:12-cv-6756 As of: 11/11/2018 05:04 PM CST 16 of 16

02/05/2018 02/05/2018 02/06/2018 03/06/2018 05/10/2018
05/18/2018 05/29/2018 06/06/2018
07/13/2018 08/21/2018 10/23/2018

12/21/2017)
150 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for extension of time (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
151 NOTICE of Motion by Kevin E. White for presentment of extension of time 150 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 2/16/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
152 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiffs' Uncontested Motion for extension of time 150 is granted. The briefing schedule on Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 is extended as follows: Plaintiffs shall respond by 2/20/2018 and Defendants shall reply by 3/6/2018. The motion presentment date of 2/16/2018 is stricken. Parties need not appear. Status hearing set for 4/24/2018 is stricken and reset for 5/10/2018 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 02/06/2018)
153 REPLY by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction, 147 (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
154 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Only counsel for Defendants appeared. Counsel for Plaintiff is reminded that an appearance is required at all scheduled hearings. Plaintiff's deadline to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 has passed without a response or request for an extension of time to file one. For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff shall have until 5/18/2018 to file a motion seeking additional time to respond to Defendants motion to dismiss. If Plaintiff does not file such motion by 5/18/2018, Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 will be taken under advisement as unopposed, with no further briefing. Status hearing set for 7/19/2018 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
155 MOTION by Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. for extension of time to file response/reply (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
156 Amended NOTICE of Motion by Kevin E. White for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 155 before Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 6/7/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(White, Kevin) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
157 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiff's Motion for extension of time to file response/reply 155 is granted.The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 : Plaintiff Triune Health Group, Inc. shall respond by 6/29/2018 and Defendants shall reply by 7/13/2018. The motion presentment date of 6/7/2018 is stricken; parties need not appear. Status hearing set for 7/19/2018 is stricken and reset for 8/21/2018 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
158 REPLY by Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda L. Solis, United States Department of Health & Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury to motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction, 147 (Supplemental Reply) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
159 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing held. Only counsel for Defendants appeared. Counsel for Plaintiff is reminded that an appearance is required at all scheduled hearings. For the reasons stated on the record, briefing of Defendants' motion to dismiss 147 is closed and the motion taken under advisement ruling. No further briefing permitted. Status hearing set for 10/24/2018 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
160 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Status hearing set for 10/24/2018 is stricken and reset for 11/14/2018 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (ef, ) (Entered: 10/23/2018)