Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 18-55451
______________________________________________________________
v.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Case No. 3:16-cv-00501-CAB-DHB
______________________________________________________________
Counsel for Amici Curiae the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the
Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 2 of 32
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 3 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 10
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 10
II. SKYLINE’S CLAIMS FALL SQUARELY WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF § 1983 AND ARE RIPE FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW ............................................................... 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................ 31
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 4 of 32
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner,
387 U.S. 136, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) ............................. 18
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County,
863 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 21
Burnett v. Grattan,
468 U.S. 42 (1984)................................................................................... 15
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,
573 U.S. ___ (2014)................................................................................. 25
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)............................................................................. 26
Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296 (1940)................................................................................. 24
Clark v. City of Seattle,
899 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 20
Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
755 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 23
Employment Division v. Smith,
494 U.S. 872 (1990)................................................................................. 12
Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servcs.,
733 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2013), vacated on other grounds,
134 S. Ct. 2902 (2014)............................................................................. 26
Hanna v. Secretary of the Army,
513 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2008)........................................................................ 26
Kimes v. Stone,
84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................... 23
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ......................... 16
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 5 of 32
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 6 of 32
Federal Statutes
State Statutes
Local Rules
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Local Rules,
Rule 29-2(b) ................................................................................................8
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 7 of 32
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. amend. I ............................................................. 10, 12, 24, 25, 28
U.S. Const. amend. XIV ......................................................................... 12, 24
LV 421213284v1
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 8 of 32
church of its long standing ability to exempt coverage for elective abortion –
While Amici, through this brief, are not making any substantive
Skyline and seek to assist the Court by demonstrating that (1) the outcome of
this appeal and its effect on religious liberty will transcend any single
actionable constitutional injuries that are ripe for review under 42 U.S.C §
1983, and (3) the Court can and should address Appellant’s claims on their
merits to prevent ongoing injustice for both Skyline and California’s broader
1
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 29-3, Amici obtained consent from all
parties prior to filing the instant brief. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
29(a)(4)(e), Amici confirm that no party’s counsel authored this brief in
whole or in part; no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was
intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief; and no person or entity
contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief.
LV 421213284v1 8
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 9 of 32
religious community.
and lay leaders, seeking to protect the ability of all Americans to freely
practice their faith. JCRL also fosters cooperation between Jewish and other
sincerely held religious beliefs. Rocklin and the JCRL recognize the
engaging the culture with the gospel of Jesus Christ and speaking to issues in
the public square for the protection of religious liberty and human
flourishing. The ERLC is charged by the SBC with addressing public policy
LV 421213284v1 9
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 10 of 32
religious beliefs. Amici assert that the First Amendment to the United States
grave risk.
ARGUMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 22, 2014, Skyline was stripped of the ability to operate its
church freely and consistently with the tenets of its faith. California’s
Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (“Knox Keene Act”), and mandating
that regulated insurance plans cover elective abortion as a “basic health care
longer valid. The DMHC issued its mandate without enacting any new law
LV 421213284v1 10
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 11 of 32
without offering any chance for public comment. This unilateral dictate has
forced Skyline to carry out its day to day operations in a manner inconsistent
with one of its core biblical beliefs – that elective abortion constitutes the
will reach far beyond the abortion debate, as state laws coercing
objectionable activity in all areas of daily life, from Orthodox Jewish food
affected. Through this brief, Amici seek to protect the First Amendment
claims on standing and ripeness grounds was clear error. Far from a
2
See Jeremiah 1:4-5 (“…Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and
before you were born I consecrated you…”); Psalm 139:13-16 (God
“formed my inward parts…knitted me together in my mother’s womb,” and
knew “the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of
them”).
LV 421213284v1 11
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 12 of 32
Inc., 193 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999). Indeed, the harm suffered by
state) is precisely what the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit, and
494 U.S. 872 (1990). Rather, the DMHC – upon advice from special interest
unborn human life. As such, the mandate is subject to strict scrutiny, and it
3
As demonstrated in the record and explained in Skyline’s opening brief, the
DMHC issued its mandate only after contact and legal consultation with its
self-proclaimed “allies” – groups supporting expansive abortion rights such
as the National Health Law Program (a group committed to removing
religious restrictions on abortion), the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood.
Opening Brief, 10-13.
LV 421213284v1 12
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 13 of 32
violate core beliefs. Nor can the DMHC pass constitutional muster by
using no set timelines or objective criteria. This “fix” would only add to the
acting under color of state law.” Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 590-
Rights. Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 543 (1972). To
effectuate those goals, Congress intended to “throw open the doors of the
United States courts” to those who had been deprived of constitutional rights
LV 421213284v1 13
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 14 of 32
Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 504 (1982) (emphasis
added).
ripeness grounds was clear error. Despite effectively conceding that Skyline
suffered an actual injury by way of the DMHC’s mandate, the district court
then puzzlingly held that Skyline lacked standing to seek any judicial
access to the federal courts” as required, the district court’s order would
force Skyline to jump through arbitrary procedural hoops and exhaust vague
future administrative remedies (through the very same state agencies that
violated Skyline’s constitutional rights to begin with) before its claims could
even be judicially considered. Indeed, the court held that Skyline was not
even permitted to climb the courthouse steps until it (1) found an insurance
carrier that would willingly violate the DMHC’s mandate by issuing a policy
excluding elective abortion coverage in nearly all instances, then (2) pleaded
with the DMHC for a wholly discretionary exemption from elective abortion
coverage that contradicted the clear terms of its own mandate, and (3) waited
LV 421213284v1 14
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 15 of 32
district court’s order ignores long standing Supreme Court precedent that the
Burnett v. Grattan, 468 U.S. 42, 50 (1984). Such claims are “independent of
federal or state law” and are “judicially enforceable in the first instance.”
Ibid. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has powerfully explained the
(emphases added).
stray further from the legislative intent and judicial precedent regarding
§ 1983. In fact, should the district court’s reasoning be upheld and adopted
LV 421213284v1 15
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 16 of 32
district court “assumed” – correctly – that the first and second conditions
(injury in fact, traceable to the challenged conduct) for Article III standing
were met, the court held that the third prong of the standing analysis,
redressability, was lacking. The district court was wrong to conclude that
standing is “relatively modest.” See M.S. v. Brown, --- F.3d ---- , 2018 WL
4211165, *4 (9th Cir. 2018), quoting Renee v. Duncan, 686 F.3d 1002, 1013
(9th Cir. 2012). In order to ensure the court has the power to provide the
citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130,
For example, in Brown, this Court found it could not redress the injury
citizens of Oregon had already voted to reject the measure, a ruling from the
district court was unable to redress the alleged injury: the court could not
substitute its own judgment for the required voter approval. Likewise, in
Republic of Marshall Islands v. United States, the Ninth Circuit held that the
LV 421213284v1 16
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 17 of 32
executing treaty provision because the court had no power to enforce the
treaty. Republic of Marshall Islands v. United States, 865 F.3d 1187, 1199
These holdings – where the court lacked any power to redress the
plaintiffs’ injuries – are in stark contrast to the situation here. In finding that
Skyline did not even meet the “relatively modest” redressability requirement
for standing, the district court created a straw man, stating that it could not
because DMHC does not provide health care plans but merely regulates
them. Not only is the district court wrong about the scope of its own
authority (it certainly can and should issue such an order to the DMHC), it
also misses the key point of the case. True, Skyline would likely welcome
(which the DMHC has yet to provide). But the primary injury in this case
occurred the moment the mandate issued -- when the DMHC improperly
stripped Skyline of its existing coverage and forbade all California health
plans from offering such coverage in the future. This outright prohibition on
constitutional rights, and only a court order lifting that prohibition can fully
LV 421213284v1 17
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 18 of 32
redress Skyline’s injury. Ordering a party to stop violating the United States
B. The district court erred in finding that Skyline’s claims are not
Constitutionally or prudentially ripe.
The district court likewise erred in finding that Skyline’s claims are
formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.”
See Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 808, 123
Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148–49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967)).
The district court is wrong on all fronts: (1) the adjudication would
not be premature (the injury occurred when the mandate was issued years
record); (3) a formal agency decision does exist (the DMHC’s August 22,
2014 letter), and (4) the effects of the DMHC’s elective abortion coverage
LV 421213284v1 18
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 19 of 32
mandate have already been “felt in a concrete way” (by Skyline and all
churches now forced to purchase plans that violate their protected beliefs).
As such, there can be no legitimate dispute that this case is ripe for review.
prudential ripeness:
i. Constitutional Ripeness
are ruling on issues that are “definite and concrete, not hypothetical or
abstract.” But here, the district court essentially conceded that a concrete
injury to Skyline had occurred, so this test has already been met. Indeed,
this case does not involve a situation where Skyline filed a preemptive
lawsuit because it was worried the DMHC might issue a mandate requiring
its insurance plan cover elective abortion. That decision has undisputedly
To skirt around this contradiction, the district court again builds and
the DMHC’s mandate, the district court reframed the issue to focus on
that such future events were too speculative. This finding ignores the fact
that since August 2014, through the current date, and at the very moment the
LV 421213284v1 19
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 20 of 32
district court was penning its order, Skyline was already offering its
receives and denies approval of a health care plan that reflects Plaintiff’s
religious beliefs, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims do not present a
even come to court until an unknown third party takes some unknown future
act outside of Skyline’s control, is not required by the law, and is clear error.
for judicial decision and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court
consideration.” See Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n, 538 U.S. at 808, 123 S.Ct.
2026. Courts have found cases not prudentially ripe only where the harm
has not yet occurred and is not certain to occur. See, e.g., Zebdieh v.
Sessions, 2018 WL 3155711, *4 (CD Cal. 2018) (request for injunction from
4
See Clark v. City of Seattle, 899 F.3d 802, 809, n. 4 (9th Cir. 2018).
LV 421213284v1 20
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 21 of 32
detention was not prudentially ripe because petitioner was not currently
detained and may not be in the future). The district court erred in finding
“In determining whether a case is fit for judicial decision, this court
has looked to whether the case presents a concrete factual situation or purely
legal issues.” See Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1154
(case was “clearly” prudentially ripe for judicial decision where the
“[a] claim is fit for decision if the issues raised are primarily legal, do not
require further factual development, and the challenged action is final.” U.S.
West Commc'ns v. MFS Intelenet, Inc., 193 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999).
the facts of the case are fully developed and that the legal issues are clear.
And the district court admits that the DMHC’s mandate “may well be a
definitive and final decision on the part of the DMHC….”. Further, because
the district court acknowledged that the DMHC’s mandate caused an actual
injury to Skyline, and because there is no dispute that the injury has not yet
LV 421213284v1 21
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 22 of 32
district court had no possible basis to find the case not prudentially ripe.
Whether or not some future DMHC exemption may occur is not a proper
Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829, 838 (9th Cir. 2012) (“we are
Put simply, the district court failed to uphold its obligation to “throw
federal courts . . .” Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496, 504
exemption from the very state agency that stripped away its coverage in the
first place before bringing a claim for relief, the district court undermined
the very purpose of § 1983. This standing and ripeness standard would pose
opposing elective abortion, but to groups of all faiths desiring to live out the
Amici respectfully request that the Court reverse the district court’s order.
LV 421213284v1 22
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 23 of 32
constitutional violation unresolved. But this Court has the authority and
discretion to decide substantive claims on their merits, even where the lower
court declines to do so, if such issues are “purely legal” and the “record
below has been fully developed.” Davis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 755 F.3d 1089,
“injustice might otherwise result.” Ibid.; see also Quinn v. Robinson, 783
F.2d 776, 814 (9th Cir. 1986). Although rare, this Court may even consider
issues sua sponte, or those raised on appeal in the first instance, if it would
Parks Sch. of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1488 (9th Cir.
1995). See also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996)
(“because the issue is purely one of law, and because our addressing it at this
The Court can and should exercise its discretion to reach and
opening brief discusses the ongoing injustice and unnecessary delay that
LV 421213284v1 23
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 24 of 32
would result if, after determining Appellant has standing to pursue their
claims, this Court remands the case back to the district court for
consideration on the merits. Amici agree with Appellant, and urge this Court
and do not require further development of the record. Reaching the legal
merit of the claims on appeal will not only protect against prolonging
Upon reaching the merits, this Court should determine and declare
(see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940)), provides that
LV 421213284v1 24
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 25 of 32
prohibiting the free exercise thereof …." (U.S. Const., Amendment 1).
Becerra, 585 U.S. ___ (2018); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___
___ (2018); McDaniel v. Paty 435 U.S. 618 (1978)), or support one favored
Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich 426 U.S. 696 (1976)). This case warrants
to its own faith forces the church into an impossible choice—to either
LV 421213284v1 25
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 26 of 32
justification for this act, that the mandate only applies to insurance providers
and thus does not impact the faith of the end-users, is unavailing.
organization itself does not directly commit the wrong. For example,
Congress exempts conscientious objectors not only from combat roles but
from participation “in any form” in war. 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(j); Hanna v.
Secretary of the Army, 513 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2008) (exempting Coptic
Christian physician from active duty based on religious beliefs). See also
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (“the question here is not
an immoral act, but rather how the plaintiffs themselves measure their degree
and Human Servcs., 733 F.3d 1208, 1215 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that
Anchorage Human Rights Comm’n, 165 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999), vacated
LV 421213284v1 26
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 27 of 32
on other grounds, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (recognizing a
guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the
religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes
practices. The Free Exercise Clause bars even ‘subtle departures from
religion was far from subtle. Indeed, the sole purpose of the DMHC’s
August 22, 2014 mandate was to strip away exclusions for abortion coverage
Skyline. The DMHC admitted that it only began “looking into” its policy for
such exclusions after learning that two religious colleges announced that
they were eliminating abortion coverage from their health plans consistent
with their religious beliefs. This admission by the DMHC, combined with
the fact that the DMHC met only with abortion rights “allies” such as the
LV 421213284v1 27
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 28 of 32
once sought comment from or met with a single affected religious group,
tells this Court all it needs to know in analyzing whether this government
strict scrutiny should apply. Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v.
Amici agree with Skyline that strict scrutiny must apply to the
DMHC’s mandate, and that the government cannot possibly meet this
standard. Not only does the DMHC mandate (1) intentionally target
plans at its sole discretion, and (3) refer to the very type of “individual
noted by Skyline, “no court has ever held that forcing any third party—let
religious organizations throughout the state. This Court must uphold and
LV 421213284v1 28
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 29 of 32
defend the Constitution’s protection for people all faiths to live consistently
with their sincerely held religious beliefs and practices – particularly where
coined the “tyranny of the majority,” and chip away this County’s
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Amici respectfully ask that the Court
reverse the district court’s decision, find that Skyline maintains standing to
pursue this action, and determine that its claims are ripe for determination on
their merits. Amici further request that the Court consider and determine the
LV 421213284v1 29
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 30 of 32
LV 421213284v1 30
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 31 of 32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirement of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6)
LV 421213284v1 31
Case: 18-55451, 09/21/2018, ID: 11021618, DktEntry: 19, Page 32 of 32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
I certify that all participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users
LV 421213284v1 32