Opinion ID: 2739934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annex and Lind

Text: With respect to Annex and Lind, we find a different standing issue. According to the pleadings, Annex has fewer than fifty full-time employees, which means Annex has no government-imposed obligation to offer health insurance of any kind—let alone the contraceptive coverage to which Lind objects. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(a), (c)(2). Only if Annex voluntarily chooses to offer insurance without the mandated contraceptive coverage, and this lack of contraceptive coverage is not “solely because of the health insurance coverage offered by such issuer,” 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(d)(1), will Annex be exposed to tax penalties. The standing problem is the pleadings and record contain no indication any Minnesota health insurer is willing, but for the mandate, to sell a plan allowing a small employer such as Annex to prohibit coverage for a handful of healthcare products and services. What few indications appear on the record are to the contrary. The complaint alleges Annex’s current insurer (whose grandfathered plan, unaffected by the mandate, covered contraceptives) would “not permit Annex[] to modify its group health plan to omit such coverage because [the insurer] requires all group -5- health plans issued to employers with fewer than 50 employees to include such coverage.” Pending this appeal, our court preliminarily enjoined the federal defendants “from enforcing the mandate . . . against Lind, Annex[], and any health insurance issuer when offering group health insurance coverage to Annex.” Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 13-1118, 2013 WL 1276025, at  (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013) (unpublished order) (emphasis added). Yet Lind informs us “the injunction has not enabled him to purchase” a plan conforming with his religious beliefs. According to Annex and Lind, “Group plan providers are unwilling to exclude some or any of the mandated coverage from their plans or do not currently offer a plan that excludes these items and are unwilling to submit such a plan to the Minnesota Department of Commerce for approval.” (Emphasis added). RFRA does not allow the federal government substantially to burden Lind’s religious beliefs, as exercised through his closely-held corporation. See Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at ___, ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2779, 2785. But in protecting Lind’s exercise of religion, RFRA cannot injure the rights of other private parties. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 535-36 (1997); see also id. at 536-37 (Stevens, J., concurring); id. at 537-44 (Scalia, J., concurring). Whether for political, moral, religious, administrative, or purely profit-driven reasons, health insurance issuers are free under RFRA to decline Annex’s business. See 41 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a) (applying RFRA only to the “Government”); City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 535-36 (limiting RFRA to the federal government). Ultimately, it is unclear whether Annex’s alleged injury is caused by the government defendants and redressable by the federal courts. Article III requires Annex to prove “‘an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.’” United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2860, 2863 (2011) (per curiam) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). Based on the pleadings and sparse record before us, we can only speculate whether Annex’s difficulties obtaining contraceptive-free insurance are (1) caused by -6- the government defendants as opposed to the independent decisions of third-party insurers, and (2) redressable by the remedy available to Annex: a permanent version of the preliminary injunction Annex already received and which failed to redress Annex’s alleged injury. Yet “[t]ime and again the Supreme Court has reminded lower courts that speculation and conjecture are not injuries cognizable under Article III.” Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 747 F.3d 1025, 1031 (8th Cir. 2014). Rather than resort to such speculation, we believe it best to vacate the district court’s denial and remand the case for additional analysis. See, e.g., Peske v. Tangedahl, 619 F.2d 729, 731 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (expressing our doubts as to jurisdiction but vacating and remanding in light of the district court’s failure to consider the issue); see also, e.g., Spencer v. Stork, 513 F. App’x 557, 558 (6th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 550 F.3d 1121, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2008); United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 307 (2d Cir. 1994). This will allow the district court to use its superior fact-finding abilities to determine, in the first instance, whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709, 712 (8th Cir. 2008) (“When a Rule 12(b)(1) ruling resolves disputed facts, the court can take evidence at a hearing.”); Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 801 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming a district court’s determination under Rule 12(b)(1), based on “factual determinations about the availability of th[e plaintiff’s requested] relief,” that the plaintiff lacked standing). -7-