throbber
Cite as: 568 U. S. ____ (2012)
`
`
`Opinion in Chambers
`
`1
`
`
` NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
`
`
`
` preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
`
` notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
`
` ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
`
`
` that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
`
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_________________
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. v. SEBELIUS
`
`
`Opinion in Chambers
`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)
`
`
`Opinion in Chambers
`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
`it
`is
`“[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-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
` HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. v. SEBELIUS
`
`
`Opinion in Chambers
`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
`
`Court.
`For the foregoing reasons, the application for an injunc-
`tion pending appellate review is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is so ordered.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket