The Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Xavier Becerra, No. 21-1890 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Religious Sisters of Mercy, Sacred Heart Mercy Health Care Center, SMP Health System, and the University of Mary (collectively, “RSM plaintiffs”) filed suit, alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services (‘HHS’) had violated, among other things, the APA, the First Amendment, and the RFRA. Additionally, the Catholic Benefits Association (CBA); Diocese of Fargo (Diocese); Catholic Charities North Dakota (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the RFRA against HHS’s and the EEOC’s interpretation and enforcement of the relevant statutes to the extent they required the CBA plaintiffs to “provide, perform, pay for, cover, or facilitate access to health services for gender transition.”
The district court held that the RFRA entitles Plaintiffs to permanent injunctive relief. On appeal, HHS and the EEOC (collectively, “the government”) challenge the district court’s grant of declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to Plaintiffs.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court first held that the CBA lacks associational standing to sue on behalf of unnamed members. However, the court held that Plaintiffs have satisfied the elements necessary to establish standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of Section 1557. Moreover, the court wrote that contrary to the government’s position, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the CBA plaintiffs face a “credible threat” of enforcement from the EEOC. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court correctly held that “intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is sufficient to show irreparable harm.”
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Gruender and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Affordable Care Act. The district court enjoined the federal defendants from enforcing Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a way which compels the plaintiffs to perform and provide insurance for gender transitions. Held: (1) the Catholic Benefits Association lacked associational standing to sue on behalf of unnamed members; (2) the remaining plaintiffs had standing to challenge HHS's enforcement of Section 1557: (3) the Catholic Benefits Association had standing to challenge the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII with respect to this issue; (4) the matter is ripe with respect to the challenges to Section 1557 and Title VII; and (5) the district court did not err in granting plaintiffs permanent injunctive relief as they showed imminent irreparable harm sufficient to justify permanent injunctive relief against HHS and the EEOC.
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.