No.Al2- - Amazon Web Services

No.Al2-_ _

3Jn tbe ~upreme QCourt of tbe mniteb ~tates

HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., MARDEL, INC., DAVID GREEN, BARBARA GREEN, STEVE GREEN, MART GREEN, AND DARSEE LETT,

Petitioners,

v.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, HILDA SOLIS, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondents.

Application from the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION PENDING APPELLATE REVIEW

Dated: December 21, 2012

S. Kyle Duncan Counsel of Record

Hannah C. Smith Eric C. Rassbach Mark L. Rienzi Eric S. Baxter Lori H. Windham Adele Auxier Keirn THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 349-7209 kduncan@ Attorneys for Petitioners

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a privately-held company that is wholly owned by trusts controlled by the Green family. No publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. Mardel, Inc. is a privately-held company that is wholly owned- by trusts controlled by the Green family. No publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

Respectfully submitted,

~ma--

s. Kyle Duncan

Counsel of Record

THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 220 Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 349-7209 kduncan@ Attorney for Petitioners Dated: December 21, 2012

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT .............................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii

JURISDICTION .............................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................... .4

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 9

I.

Petitioners face critical and exigent circumstances..................................10

II.

Petitioners' rights under RFRA are indisputably clear............................12

A. Petitioners have established a substantial burden (heavy fines) on a religious exercise (abstention from providing certain insurance for abortion-causing drugs) ........................................................................ 13

B. The Tenth Circuit ignored this Court's precedents by re-writing the content of Petitioners' religious beliefs............................................... 15

C. The fact that Petitioners exercise religion in the business context presents no obstacle to their indisputable rights under RFRA. ...............18

D. The mandate cannot survive strict scrutiny.............................................21

E. Most other courts to have considered the issue have granted pre11. m.1nary l.nJ.unct1' ons............................................................................ ..25

III. Injunctive relief would aid this Court's jurisdiction.................................27

IV. The Court should also grant certiorari before judgment..........................31

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 35

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone,

600 F.3d 1301 (lOth Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 13

Adkins v. Kaspar, 393 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 14

Am. Pulverizer Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 6:12-cv-03459 (W.D. Mo) ............................................................................................2

Am. Trucking Assocs. v. Gray,

u.s. 483 1306 (1987) ................................................................................................. 10

Annex Med., Inc. v. Sebelius, 0:12-cv-02804 (D. Minn.) ............................................................................................3

Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Sebelius, No. 4:12-cv-924 (E.D. Mo.) .......................................................................................... 3

Ave Maria Univ. v. Sebelius, No. 2:12-cv-00088 (M.D. Fla.) .....................................................................................3

Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) ...................................................................................................20

Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, 2012 WL 5879796 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 21, 2012) .......................................................... 3

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah,

u.s. 508 520 (1993) ...................................................................................................19

City of Boerne v. Flores,

u.s. 521 507 (1997) ............................................................................................. 14, 21

Coll. of the Ozarks v. Sebelius, No. 6:12-cv-03428 (W.D. Mo.) .....................................................................................3

Colorado Christian Univ. v. Sebelius, No. 11-cv-03350 (D. Colo.) .......................................................................................... 3

Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Hooker, 680 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................... 20

Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb, 409 U.S. 1235 (1972) ................................................................................................. 10

111

Conkright v. Frommert,

u.s. 556

1401 (2009) ... " ..... " ... " ............ " ............... " ...... " ..... "".""" .... "" .. """"" ..... 12

Conlon v. Sebelius, No. 1: 12-cv-3932 (N.D. Ill.) .........................................................................................3

Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 1: 12-cv-159 (N.D. Ind.) .........................................................................................3

Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975) .................................... ?:"' .......................................................... 12

East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Sebelius, Case No. 4: 12-cv-03009 (S.D. Tex.) ............................................................................3

EEOCv. Townley Eng'g & Mfg. Co., 859 F .2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988).....................................................................................20

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ................................................................................................... 11

Employment Diu. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ............................................................................................. 13, 16

Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 2: 12-cv-00501 (N.D. Ala.) .....................................................................................3

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ...................................................................................................32

Fishman v. Schaeffer,

429 U.S. 1325 (1976) ........................................................................................... 10, 11

Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville v. Sebelius,

No. 2:12-cv-440 (S.D. Ohio) ........................................................................................ 3

FTC v. Dean Foods Co.,

u.s. 384 597 (1966) ... "."." ....... "" ......... """" ... " ................ " ...... " .... " .... "."" ....... " ...27

Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, No. 2: 12-cv-00207 (W.D. Pa.) ......................................................................................2

Grace Coll. v. Sebelius, No. 3: 12-cv-00459 (N.D. Ind.) ..................................................................................... 3

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) ...................................................................................................33

lV

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download