(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, today filed its fourth direct challenge to the mandate of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the basis that the mandate violates the religious beliefs of business owners. The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and contends that the HHS mandate violates constitutional and statutory rights by requiring two Ohio companies and their owners to purchase health insurance for employees that includes coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
The ACLJ represents Francis A. Gilardi, Jr. and Philip M. Gilardi, two brothers who own and control two companies that are involved in the processing, packaging, and transportation of fresh produce. The companies are: Freshway Foods, a nearly 25 year old family-owned fresh produce processor and packer, which serves 23 states and has 340 full-time employees. Also represented: Freshway Logistics - a family-owned for-hire carrier of mainly refrigerated products serving 23 states for the last 10 years with approximately 55 full-time employees. Both companies are located in Sidney, Ohio, a city in west-central Ohio located about 40 miles north of Dayton.
The owners, who are Catholic, contend that the HHS mandate requiring coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs – violates their religious beliefs.
“Our clients believe that having to pay for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization will cause them to violate their religious beliefs and moral values,” said Edward White, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ. “They have specifically excluded such things from their company’s health insurance plan for the past ten years. The HHS mandate, however, will require them to pay for such drugs and services on April 1st. They have filed this lawsuit seeking an injunction against the mandate so they can continue to run their business in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral values.”
The lawsuit, posted here, argues that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit contends the HHS mandate forces the owners to “violate their religious beliefs and moral values” or face crippling fines and penalties. For the two companies combined, the fines and penalties would total nearly $40,000 a day, amounting to $14.4 million annually, which the owners contend will be “ruinous” for their businesses.
The companies face an April 1, 2013, renewal date for their health insurance coverage. The lawsuit requests the court declare the mandate unconstitutional and enter an injunction preventing the mandate’s application to the plaintiffs.
Today’s lawsuit represents the fourth direct challenge in federal court by the ACLJ to the HHS mandate. The ACLJ has successfully obtained injunctions in the three other direct challenges, barring enforcement of the mandate until the legal challenges are resolved. In addition to the direct challenges, the ACLJ has filed 13 amicus briefs backing other legal challenges to the HHS mandate.
Led by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the Hobby Lobby decision , where the Supreme Court held that the HHS Mandate violated the religious liberties of business owners, it’s clear that the struggle to vindicate religious freedom and the right to conscience is far from over. Having said that,
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could cripple ObamaCare. The Supreme Court has a critical opportunity to reject IRS regulations that illegally authorize tax subsidies for purchasers of health insurance on federal healthcare exchanges. The ACLJ has filed an amicus...
After his “glib” apology before Congress this week for calling the American people “stupid,” ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber attempted to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and … dodge every substantive question that came his way. He refused to answer even the simplest questions like how much ( millions )
From day one, we have warned that the real danger of Obamacare is not in the 2,700 pages of its text (as bad as they are), but in the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that would flow out of that text. This week provides yet another example of that danger, and it is in the...