The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta et al v. Sebelius et al
||Christ the King Catholic School, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, Inc., The Roman Catholic Diocese of Savannah, The Most Reverend John Hartmayer, The Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory and The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta
||U. S. Department of Labor, U. S. Department of Treasury, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, Timothy Geithner and U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
||October 5, 2012
||US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
||William S. Duffey
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Other
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 30, 2014
OPINION AND ORDER that the Defendants' 109 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is GRANTED with respect to the Defendants' request to enter a final judgment on the Diocesan Plaintiffs' RFRA claim, and the Plaintiffs' free exercise clause, compelled speech, and internal church governance claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment 64 on the Diocesan Plaintiffs RF RA claim, and the Plaintiffs' free exercise clause, compelled speech, and internal church governance claims is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with respect to the Defendants' claim that the Court should ree valuate its RFRA analysis because Plaintiffs did not allege that they operate and maintain a church plan within the meaning of ERISA. Given that the Court's March 26, 2014 Opinion and Order granted the Plaintiffs'Motion for Summary Judgme nt on the RFRA claim raised by Plaintiffs Catholic Charities and CENGI, and the Plaintiffs' gag-order claim, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment on these claims is necessarily DENIED.. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/30/2014. (anc)
|March 26, 2014
OPINION AND ORDER that the Defendants are PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from enforcing the contraceptive mandate against Plaintiffs CENGI and Catholic Charities. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government is PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED and ENJOINE D from enforcing the requirement against CENGI and Catholic Charities to execute and deliver a self-certification form to their TPA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff CENGI and Plaintiff Catholic Charities' Motion for Summary Judgment is GR ANTED in part and DENIED in part 78 . CENGI and Catholic Charities' Motion for Summary Judgment on their RFRA claim is GRANTED. Summary Judgment on the claim that the accommodation violates the First Amendment because it places a content-based restriction on their freedom of speech is also GRANTED. The Motion for Summary Judgment on their remaining claims is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Atlanta Archdiocese, Savannah Diocese, Archbis hop Gregory and Bishop Hartmayer is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to all claims, including claims based on the RFRA and the federal constitution, because, as the Government acknowledges, these Plaintiffs are exempt from the contraceptive mandate and th e requirements of the accommodation 78 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment regarding the Plaintiffs' claims based on the Establishment Clause, the APA, and the unconstitutional delegation of congressional authority is GRANTED 64 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT 57 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/26/2014. (anc)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Georgia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?