A Pennsylvania federal judge granted Pennsylvania and New Jersey a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking two Trump administration final rules. The two final rules create exemptions for moral and religious objections to the ACA’s contraception coverage mandate.
Over a year ago, Judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction blocking religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraceptive coverage on similar grounds. The initial set of interim final rules – the religious exemption rule and moral exemption rule – were published without following the notice and comment procedure that is normally required for issuing federal rules. In addition to procedural defects, the rules broadened the scope of exemptions to the contraceptive mandate.
The moral exemption rule permitted for-profit entities that were not publicly traded to object based on “sincerely held moral convictions.” The religious exemption rule expanded the religious exemption to include non-profit and for-profit entities that were closely held or publicly traded instead of limiting it to closely held corporations.
After Judge Beetlestone issued the first injunction, the agencies published two new rules – the final religious exemption rule and final moral exemption rule – after a notice and comment period. The new rules mirrored the old rules with a few technical changes.
To be granted a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, she is likely to suffer irreparable harm, the balance of equity weighs in her favor, and that the injunction is in the public interest. Accordingly, Judge Beetlestone indicated that she will likely find the two new rules invalid based on procedural and substantive grounds. First, the new rules will likely be tainted because the agencies promulgated the initial rules without following the notice and rulemaking procedures. Second, the agencies likely exceeded the scope of their authority under the ACA to propose contraceptive mandate guidelines by creating broad exemptions to the mandate. Finally, the government’s argument that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) enabled the agencies to issue the rules will likely fail because the scope of RFRA is determined by the courts, not the agencies. Notably, Judge Beetlestone’s rulings do not permanently block the policy, but the preliminary injunction does stop the policy from going into effect while legal challenges are pursued.
The court granted the nationwide injunction, instead of a local injunction, because it concluded that anything short of a nationwide injunction would afford no relief for Pennsylvania and New Jersey citizens working for out-of-state employers and out-of-state students attending school in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
