Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Supreme_Court/12A644/Hobby_Lobby_Stores_Inc._et_al._Applicants_v._Kathleen_Sebelius_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services_et_al./12-26-2012-Application_denied_by_Justice_Sotomayor/
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 15:12:02
Document Index: 610477972

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1001', '§300', '§2000', '§1651', '§1651', '§2101']

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.,, 12A644, Application denied by Justice Sotomayor (U.S. Dec. 26, 2012)
Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`Opinion in Chambers
`No. 12A644
` HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL., v. KATHLEEN
`SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
`SERVICES, ET AL.
`ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
`[December 26, 2012]
` JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Justice.
`This is an application for an injunction pending appel-
`late review filed with me as Circuit Justice for the Tenth
`Circuit. The applicants are two closely held for-profit
`corporations, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Hobby Lobby) and
`Mardel, Inc. (Mardel), and five family members who indi-
`rectly own and control those corporations. Hobby Lobby is
`an arts and crafts retail chainstore, with more than 13,000
`employees in over 500 stores nationwide. Mardel is a
`chain of Christian-themed bookstores, with 372 full-time
`employees in 35 stores. Employees of the two corporations
`and their families receive health insurance from the cor-
`porations’ self-insured group health plans.
`Under §1001(5) of the Patient Protection and Affordable
`Care Act, 124 Stat. 131, 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a), non
`grandfathered group health plans must cover certain
`preventive health services without cost-sharing, including
`various preventive services for women as provided in
`guidelines issued by the Health Resources Services Ad-
`ministration (HRSA), a component of the Department of
`Health and Human Services. As relevant here, HRSA’s
` HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. v. SEBELIUS
`guidelines for women’s preventive services require cover-
`age for “all Food and Drug Administration . . . approved
`contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and pa-
`tient education and counseling for all women with repro-
`ductive capacity as prescribed by a provider.” 77 Fed. Reg.
`8725 (Feb. 15, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`The applicants filed an action in Federal District Court
`for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Free Exer-
`cise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious
`Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C.
`§2000bb et seq. They allege that under the HRSA guide-
`lines, Hobby Lobby and Mardel will be required, contrary
`to the applicants’ religious beliefs, to provide insurance
`coverage for certain drugs and devices that the applicants
`believe can cause abortions. The applicants simultaneously
`filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent
`enforcement of the contraception-coverage requirement,
`which is scheduled to take effect with respect to the em-
`ployee insurance plans of Hobby Lobby and Mardel on
`January 1, 2013. The District Court for the Western
`District of Oklahoma denied the motion for a preliminary
`injunction, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
`denied the applicants’ motion for an injunction pending
`resolution of the appeal.
`The only source of authority for this Court to issue an
`injunction is the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). “We
`have consistently stated, and our own Rules so require,
`that such power is to be used sparingly.” Turner Broad-
`casting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U. S. 1301, 1303 (1993)
`(Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers); see this Court’s Rule 20.1
`(“Issuance by the Court of an extraordinary writ author-
`ized by 28 U. S. C. §1651(a) is not a matter of right, but of
`discretion sparingly exercised”). Unlike a stay of an ap-
`peals court decision pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2101(f), a
`request for an injunction pending appeal “‘does not simply
`suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants
` Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower
`courts.’” Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U. S. ___
`(2010) (quoting Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc.
`v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 479 U. S. 1312, 1313
`(1986) (SCALIA, J., in chambers)). Accordingly, a Circuit
`Justice may
`issue an
`injunction only when
`“[n]ecessary or appropriate in aid of our jurisdiction” and
`“the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Wiscon-
`sin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 542
`U. S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C. J., in chambers)
`(internal quotation marks omitted).
`Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for
`the extraordinary relief they seek. First, whatever the
`ultimate merits of the applicants’ claims, their entitlement
`to relief is not “indisputably clear.” Lux v. Rodrigues, 561
`U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (slip
`op., at 2) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court
`has not previously addressed similar RFRA or free exer-
`cise claims brought by closely held for-profit corporations
`and their controlling shareholders alleging that the man-
`datory provision of certain employee benefits substantially
`burdens their exercise of religion. Cf. United States v. Lee,
`455 U. S. 252 (1982) (rejecting free exercise claim brought
`by individual Amish employer who argued that paying
`Social Security taxes for his employees interfered with his
`exercise of religion). Moreover, the applicants correctly
`recognize that lower courts have diverged on whether to
`grant temporary injunctive relief to similarly situated
`plaintiffs raising similar claims, Application for Injunction
`Pending Appellate Review 25–26, and no court has issued
`a final decision granting permanent relief with respect to
`such claims. Second, while the applicants allege they will
`face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between
`complying with the contraception-coverage requirement
`and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an
`injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdic-
`tion. Even without an injunction pending appeal, the
`applicants may continue their challenge to the regulations
`in the lower courts. Following a final judgment, they may,
`if necessary, file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this
`For the foregoing reasons, the application for an injunc-
`tion pending appellate review is denied.