Search  |  Login  |  Register

1356747755000

(Washington, DC) - The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a pro-life legal organization that focuses on constitutional law, achieved a significant victory today when a federal appeals court granted an emergency motion for an injunction putting the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate on hold – preventing it from being enforced against an Illinois business and its owners.

The ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit in October on behalf of Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc. Earlier this month, a federal district court rejected a motion for an injunction to block the implementation of the mandate and the ACLJ immediately appealed the decision. Today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency motion for an injunction – putting the mandate on hold just days before it was scheduled to be enforced.

“We’re extremely pleased that the appeals court blocked the implementation of this discriminatory mandate,” said Edward White, ACLJ Senior Counsel. “Our argument is clear: the HHS mandate unlawfully compels employers such as our clients to do the following: abandon their faith to comply with the law, or follow their faith and pay significant annual penalties to the federal government. This mandate violates the conscience rights of our clients, and we’re now looking forward to proceeding with our legal challenge.”

The ACLJ represents Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., a family owned, full-service construction contractor serving Central and Southern Illinois for over 50 years. The company is located in Highland, Illinois and has about 90 full time employees. The company provides a group health insurance plan for only its non-union employees, which number about 20. Cyril B. Korte and Jane E. Korte own a controlling interest in the company and contend the HHS mandate violates their Catholic faith. The mandate requires the company to purchase health insurance for employees that includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2013.

The ACLJ has filed three direct legal challenges against the HHS mandate and more than a dozen amicus briefs backing other lawsuits challenging the mandate.

Just last week, a federal district court in Missouri granted an ACLJ request for an injunction – blocking the mandate from being enforced against a Missouri company. And, in November, a federal appeals court also stepped in and put a halt to the enforcement of the mandate against a St. Louis company.

Led by ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ is based in Washington, D.C.

Latest in
ObamaCare

Though Flawed, ObamaCare Stands

By Michelle Terry1435602214218

About a month ago, we discussed five critical failures of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Unfortunately, we now know that the highest Court in the land has determined – again – that this law will stand, despite its many flaws. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United...

read more

Supreme Court Again Rewrites ObamaCare

By Jay Sekulow1435247432884

It’s a troubling and disappointing decision by the Supreme Court. Today’s 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court backing the Obama Administration’s health care law – granting taxpayer subsidies not authorized by Congress in order to save the flawed law – did not interpret the law. The majority...

read more

Will SCOTUS Topple ObamaCare?

By Edward White1434376800000

According to Jonathan Gruber, an architect of ObamaCare who helped the Obama Administration deceive the American people about it, the law has three key interrelated components: (1) rules dictating what health insurance plans must include, (2) the individual and employer mandates, and (3) subsidies...

read more

Jay Discusses Latest ObamaCare Case

By ACLJ.org1434122648336

Earlier this week, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow visited America’s Newsroom on Fox News to discuss the latest ObamaCare Supreme Court case with Bill Hemmer. The Supreme Court will issue its ruling in King v. Burwell any day now. The case centers around an IRS regulation that unilaterally and...

read more