Annex Medical, Inc., et al. v. Sebelius, et al., No. 13-1118 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseAnnex, Stuart Lind, and Tom Janas filed suit challenging HHS' contraceptive mandate under the Religioous Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a). Lind, a controlling shareholder of Annex, opposed insurance coverage of contraceptives for Annex's employees. The district court denied Annex and Lind's motion for a preliminary injunction respecting the contraceptive mandate's enforcement. The court concluded that Janas lacks standing to appeal because he did not join the preliminary injunction motion which forms the basis of the appeal; the mandate does not apply to Annex because Annex has fewer than fifty full-time employees and has no government-imposed obligation to offer health insurance of any kind; the only alleged injury is that independent third parties - private health insurance companies not involved in this case - are unable to sell Annex a health insurance plan that excludes healthcare inconsistent with Lind's religious relief; and, ultimately, it is unclear whether Annex's alleged injury is caused by the government defendants and redressable by the federal courts. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial and remanded for the district court to conduct more fact-finding to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists.
Court Description: Civil case - Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Affordable Health Care Act. In this appeal challenging the district court denial of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the contraceptive mandate under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000bb-1(a), appellant Janus had no standing to appeal the order; appellant Annex did not have a sufficient number of employees to be required to offer any health insurance and the mandate did not apply to it; the court could not determine on the basis of this record whether Annex's and Lind's claimed injury - that independent third parties (private health insurers not involved in the case) are unable to sell Annex a health insurance plan that excludes healthcare inconsistent with Lind's religious beliefs - could establish standing, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Judge Colloton, concurring in the judgment.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 6, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.