Federal Court Blocks Implementation of HHS Mandate for Illinois Law Firm | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


Court Halts Enforcement of HHS Mandate

By Francis J. Manion1363810382000

A federal district court judge in Chicago today granted our motion for a preliminary injunction - blocking enforcement of the HHS mandate for an Illinois law firm that we represent.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald A. Guzman granted our request for a preliminary injunction today in the case of Lindsay and Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel LLC v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

We filed the lawsuit last month on behalf of William C. Lindsay who owns the controlling interest in Plaintiff, Lindsay, Rappaport & Postel, LLC, and is its managing partner. The law firm primarily practices in insurance defense, insurance coverage, and appellate work, serving clients in the Chicago area and throughout Illinois for more than years.

Our client, who is Catholic, wants to manage and operate the law firm in a manner that reflects reflects the teachings, mission, and values of his Catholic faith. The lawsuit contends that the HHS mandate - which requires the law firm to purchase health insurance for employees that includes coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs - violates his religious beliefs and the Constitution.

Specifically, we contend the HHS mandate violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

We're pleased that the court today issued the preliminary injunction - putting the enforcement of the HHS mandate on hold for our client. The order comes just days before the law firm is scheduled to renew its health insurance coverage.

We continue to move forward in challenging this mandate. Today's court action now bring to four the number of injunctions issued in our six direct challenges to the mandate that we have filed in federal court.

We are also supporting other court challenges of the mandate and have filed 13 amicus briefs supporting other lawsuits.

Like our other challenges, we believe the HHS mandate is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.  The fact is the religious beliefs of employers must be respected by the government.  It is clear that employers like William C. Lindsay must be able to operate their business in a manner consistent with their moral values, not the values of the government.


Latest in

Trump Admin Starts to Dismantle ObamaCare

By Harry G. Hutchison1485291594293

On President Trump’s first day in office, the ACLJ has already achieved a significant victory as the President adopts a key ACLJ recommendation aimed at bringing down pro-abortion ObamaCare. As one of his first acts, President Trump issued an Executive order directing the Secretary of Health and...

read more

Seven Steps to Dismantle Obamacare

By Harry G. Hutchison1479228324786

The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was enacted with great fanfare and unrivaled deception in 2010 as part of a duplicitous plan to destroy America’s private health care system as we know it. The Speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi, infamously said in March 2010 that, “we have to pass...

read more

The Obamacare Deception Threatens America

By Harry G. Hutchison1477500715632

Promising to bring costs down and increase access on the one hand, and enacted with enormous fanfare and unequaled deception on the other, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) became law in 2010. This law was perhaps the most ambitious social legislation in...

read more

“Pure Applesauce”

By Matthew Clark1456416575920

One of Justice Scalia’s most memorable moments came in a compelling dissent to one of the recent ObamaCare cases. He cut through the majority opinion’s ambiguous, contorted, and complex legal justification for upholding the “SCOTUScare” exchanges in just two words: “ Pure applesauce. ” Pondering...

read more