Wieland v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-3528 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseWieland is a member of the Missouri House of Representatives and obtains healthcare coverage for his family through the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan (MCHCP), a plan made available to him by his employer, the state. Until August 1, 2013, MCHCP offered an opportunity to opt out of contraceptive coverage under state law. The state and MCHCP discontinued offering that opportunity when the state opt-out was found to be preempted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 42 U.S.C. 300gg, and its implementing regulation. The Wielands sued the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, challenging the ACA, as requiring them to obtain, and provide to their daughters, healthcare coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The district court dismissed for lack of standing. The Eighth Circuit reversed, stating that it is more than merely speculative that the Wielands’ injury would be redressed if they were granted the injunctive relief they seek. If the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby overruled the case under which the opt-out was eliminated, the state law opt-out provision would likely again be available.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Affordable Care Act. The district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, which they alleged required them to obtain, and to provide to their daughters, healthcare coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs; the plaintiffs' claimed injury is fairly traceable to HHS's enforcement of threatened enforcement of the Mandate as the state health care plan eliminated contraceptive-fee plans and transferred plaintiffs to a plan including such coverage in order to avoid violating the Mandate; further, the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that it is more than merely speculative that their injury would be addressed if they were granted the remedy they seek.
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.