Bench Memos

Preliminary Injunction Against HHS Mandate in Michigan Case

I’m pleased to learn that Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan yesterday granted an individual and his family-owned “secular, for profit” company a preliminary injunction against the HHS mandate. The ruling rests on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (My series of posts on how the HHS mandate violates RFRA is here.)

Judge Cleland’s opinion has much to commend it, including:

1. Cleland soundly concludes both that Daniel Weingartz, the president of Weingartz Supply Company (which sells outdoor power equipment) has standing to seek a preliminary injunction and that Weingartz Supply Company, as a closely held family corporation, has a “strong case for standing” to assert the religious-liberty rights of its owners. (Slip op. at 7-9.) (Cleland therefore finds it unnecessary to address whether the company has an independent right to religious liberty. He also holds that the lead named plaintiff, the Catholic group Legatus, has not yet suffered an injury in fact because it benefits from the government’s temporary “safe harbor” against enforcement.)

2. Unlike the double-talk in the poorly reasoned ruling a month ago in a case from Missouri, Cleland recognizes that it is not the role of judges to second-guess a person’s sincere understanding of what his religious doctrine requires. The substantial penalty for noncompliance with the HHS mandate  means that it is proper for the court to take for granted that plaintiffs are likely to show at trial that the HHS mandate substantially burdens their exercise of religion. (Slip op. at 12-13.)

3. Notwithstanding the government’s “interest in promoting public health as a general matter,” it is “uncertain” that the government will be able to prove a compelling interest in imposing the HHS mandate on Weingartz Supply Company. As exemption for the company would “affect only its 170 employees and their dependents” and thus “seems a minuscule hindrance to whatever interest, compelling or otherwise, the Government may seek to advance.” (Slip op. at 20-21.)

4. Plaintiffs face irreparable harm, and the balance of harms and the public interest tip strongly in plaintiffs’ favor. (Slip op. at 25-28.)

On the other hand, I think that Judge Cleland is clearly wrong not to recognize that the exemption of so-called “grandfathered” plans, covering tens of millions of Americans, from the HHS mandate fatally undercuts the government’s claim that the HHS mandate serves a compelling governmental interest. (See slip op. at 18-19.) I develop this general point more fully in this post in my RFRA series and won’t repeat it here. I’ll simply note that Cleland’s observation that the grandfathering rule “seems to be a reasonable plan” (emphasis added) sets a bar much lower than what the “compelling governmental interest” test requires.

I likewise believe that Judge Cleland is far too generous to the government in concluding that it might meet its burden on “least restrictive means” at trial. As I have explained (in this post), the HHS mandate adopts the means that is most restrictive of the religious liberty of objecting employers.

For those of you keeping score at home: In the context of preliminary-injunction motions, three judges have now addressed the merits of the RFRA challenge to the HHS mandate. Judge Cleland (a Bush 41 appointee) joins Judge John L. Kane (a Carter appointee) of the District of Colorado in ruling against the mandate, while Bush 41 appointee Carol E. Jackson confusedly ruled the other way.

Most Popular


The Truth Hurts at Penn Law

One of the chief criticisms of affirmative action is that it devalues credentials that minorities could otherwise use to distinguish themselves. If college admissions were purely merit-based, employers would have no reason to discount an impressive degree just because it is held by a black or Hispanic applicant. ... Read More

Nordic Welfare States Worsen the Gender Gap

Following International Women's Day 2018, a host of policies have been promoted as ways to advance women's careers. CNBC, for example, has run a story arguing that policies such as parental leave for both parents can raise women’s incomes. In the Huffington Post we can read that adopting the welfare policies of ... Read More

UNC Caves to the ‘Buy Local’ Silliness

One of the silly notions loose in America is that there is some virtue in buying local -- preferring sellers simply because they're located in "your area" (city, county, state, country) over those located elsewhere. In other words, geographical discrimination is, supposedly, good. Governments and governmental ... Read More

Running With Trump

Jeff Roe, who managed Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign in 2016, has a message for Republican congressional candidates: Don’t run from Trump this year. Instead they should “[f]ix bayonets and charge the hill.” What exactly does this mean? It’s not that they should “support the president’s ... Read More

The Pope Francis Challenge

An unforced error from a Vatican communications office the other day drove me a little something like crazy. The nature of the unforced error is that it is wholly unnecessary and typically distracting. And so it was. Days before, as the fifth anniversary of Pope Francis’s election as pope was approaching, a ... Read More