Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Filing in SB 749

Filing in SB 749

|Views: 280|Likes:
Published by Chad Garrison
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster asks court to clarify ruling on contraception coverage, allowing religious organizations to opt out of ACA.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster asks court to clarify ruling on contraception coverage, allowing religious organizations to opt out of ACA.

More info:

Published by: Chad Garrison on Apr 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





MISSOURI INSURANCE )COALITION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Cause No.: 4:12-cv-02354-AGF)JOHN M. HUFF, in his official ) Oral Argument Requestedcapacity as Director of the )Missouri Department of )Insurance, Institutions and )Professional Registration, ))Defendant. )MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’SMOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT
Defendant John M. Huff, in his official capacity as Director of theMissouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and ProfessionalRegistration (the “Director”), and pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 7-4.01, submits the following Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motionto Alter or Amend the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.
Defendant recognizes, and does not seek to relitigate or appeal, thisCourt’s ruling regarding the supremacy of the Affordable Care Act’scontraceptive coverage provisions to insurance carriers, businesses andindividuals who, by their conduct, have freely chosen to enter the stream of commerce.
Case: 4:12-cv-02354-AGF Doc. #: 76-1 Filed: 04/11/13 Page: 1 of 11 PageID #: 1161
However, defendant asks this Court to alter or amend its judgment asapplied to religious employers,
such as the Archdiocese of St. Louis, thathave been explicitly exempted by the Obama Administration from the ACA’scontraceptive mandate. Without alteration or amendment, the Court’s rulingwould subject Missouri’s religious employers to an insurance mandate that isnot required by federal law,
was never contemplated by the MissouriGeneral Assembly, and cannot be supported by principles of federalpreemption.The Court’s ruling inadvertently leaves insurance companies unable tosell to religious employers insurance policies that religious employers have
45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)(1)-(4) (Exempting “religiousemployers” from the federal contraceptive mandate. A “religious employer” iscurrently defined as an employer that “(1) The inculcation of religious valuesis the purpose of the organization. (2) The organization primarily employspersons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (3) Theorganization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of theorganization. (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described insection 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal RevenueCode of 1986, as amended.”);
see also
75 Fed. Reg. 41726, 41731 (July 19,2010) (exempting grandfathered health plans);http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/factsheets/womens-preven-02012013.html(last visited April 10,2013) (proposing rule exempting certain non-profit, non-exempt organizationswith religious objections to contraceptive services).
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13;
see also
Women’s Preventative Services:Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines,
available at
 http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/(last visited April 10, 2013);
77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8729
 (requiring health plans to provide all FDA approved contraceptive methodsfor the preventative care of women).
Case: 4:12-cv-02354-AGF Doc. #: 76-1 Filed: 04/11/13 Page: 2 of 11 PageID #: 1162
been given the right to purchase under federal law. This inconsistency in theCourt’s ruling should be cured.
“A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant amotion to alter or amend judgment.”
 B.M. ex rel. Miller v. South Callaway R-II Sch. Dist.
, 2012 WL 5818001, 1 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Fed. R.Civ. P. 59(e));
see also United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d930, 933 (8th Cir.2006). Rule 59(e) motions “serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discoveredevidence.”
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d at 933. “The purpose of theRule is to allow the district court ‘the power to rectify its own mistakes in theperiod immediately following the entry of judgment.’”
Norman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Educ.,
79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir.1996)).“A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend must show: ‘1) an interveningchange in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence not availablepreviously; or 3) the need to correct a clear error of law or preventmanifest injustice.’”
, 2012 WL 5818001, 1 (quoting
 Bannister v. Armontrout,
807 F.Supp. 516, 556 (W.D. Mo. 1991)). In this case, defendantrequests that the Court alter or amend its judgment to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Case: 4:12-cv-02354-AGF Doc. #: 76-1 Filed: 04/11/13 Page: 3 of 11 PageID #: 1163

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->