Annex Medical v. Sebelius

Posted on April 3rd, 2014 by Kaylan Phillips

Stuart Lind does not believe his religious faith is something he must exhibit only in the confines of his private home. Rather, he has publicly committed his company, Minnesota-based Annex Medical, Inc., to “conducting business in a way that is pleasing to God and is faithful to Biblical principles and values.” Enter the “contraception mandate,” a federal regulation promulgated under the authority of Obamacare that forces employers—under threat of severe penalties—to pay for and provide contraception, sterilization and abortifacients in any employee group health insurance plan. The contraception mandate threatened Lind’s religious way of life, forcing him to choose between his faith and his livelihood.

In November of 2012, Lind, Annex Medical and Tom Janus, a Minnesota entrepreneur, sued the federal government, explaining that their sincerely-held Catholic beliefs prohibit them from complying with the contraception mandate and that forcing them to do so is a violation of their constitutional and statutory right to free exercise of religion.

After a federal district court denied Lind relief, ActRight Legal Foundation took his case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which temporarily blocked enforcement of the contraception mandate for Lind and Annex Medical while the court considered the merits of the challenge.

Lind’s case is one of 47 similar challenges filed across the country by religiously-motivated businesses and their owners. Two of those cases have now reached the steps of the Supreme Court, which heard argument from the challengers and the federal government in March. Federal courts throughout the nation are duty bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, meaning Lind’s case will likely hinge on how the Supreme Court decides the cases before it.

 

Case Data and Documents
Key Trial Documents Recent and Relevant News

Appellate Court

United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit-Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Appellants’ Principal Brief

Appellees’ Brief

 

District Court

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion Preliminary Injunction

Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

United States District Court of Minnesota Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Wall Street Journal: The Hobby Lobby Decision and Its Distortions (July 15, 2014)

The Daily Caller: Six Myths and Facts About the Hobby Lobby Decision (July 10, 2014)

Politico: Religious Groups Prep for Hobby Lobby Repeat (July 3, 2014)

Politico: Hobby Lobby Decision: 5 Takeaways (July 1, 2014)

The New York Times: Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations: Justices Rule in Favor of Hobby Lobby (June 30, 2014)

National Law Review: Obama Administration Revises the Contraceptive Mandate, But Provides No Accommodations for For-Profit Companies with Religious Objections (February 9, 2013)

 

 

Recent Case Documents Amicus Briefs

Appellate Court

Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

Response in Opposition to Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit-Order Granting Preliminary Injunction

Appellants’ Principal Brief

Appellees’ Brief

Appellants’ Brief in Reply

 

District Court

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Echert Declaration

Lind Declaration

Lind Declaration-Exhibit A

Lind Declaration-Exhibit B

Lind Declaration-Exhibit C

Lind Declaration-Exhibit D

Supplemental Lind Declaration

Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion Preliminary Injunction

Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

United States District Court of Minnesota Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appellate Court

Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal (March 11, 2013)

Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

Liberty, Life, and Law Foundation Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal (March 19, 2013)

Professor of Law Bradley P. Jacob, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

The Right Reverend W. Thomas Frerking, OSB, and Missouri Roundtable for Life Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

Christian Schools International, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

The Minnesota Catholic Conference Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

Sharpe Holdings, Inc., and Charles N. Sharpe Amicus Brief

Physicians Reproductive Health, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Affirmance

The National Women’s Law Center and Eighteen Other National Regional, State, and Local Organizations Amicus Brief in Support of Affirmance

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Amicus Brief

National Health Law Program, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Affirmance

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Reversal

ACLU, et al., Amicus Brief in Support of Affirmance

 

District Court

ACLU Amicus Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

« »