Hobby Lobby, Resisting State Subpoena, Is Drawn Into New Birth Control Suit
"The state of Washington has no business demanding nationwide data from some of the biggest private companies in the country," lawyers for Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. tell a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington.
December 15, 2017 at 12:38 PM
3 minute read
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the arts and craft company whose religious rights were the centerpiece of a dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, has been drawn back into a fight over birth control insurance. This time, the company is resisting a state subpoena for information about employment practices.
The state of Washington is suing the Trump administration over rules that would allow nearly all employers to refuse to provide contraceptive insurance for their employees if the employer has a religious or moral objection. The new rules were issued in October by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and almost immediately afterward, eight lawsuits were filed challenging them in federal district courts.
In Washington v. Trump, filed in federal district court in Tacoma, the state's attorneys subpoenaed eight companies, including Hobby Lobby, for information about their employment practices and employee compensation. The state contends it needs that information to establish standing—injury caused by the rollback—to challenge the rules. The Trump administration's U.S. Justice Department is arguing the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state lacks standing to go forward.
Five of the eight companies have asked U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton of the Western District of Washington to block the subpoenas, which require production of the information on Dec. 15, 18 or 19. Although all eight conduct business in Washington, five, including Hobby Lobby, are based out of state, according to their counsel, Michael Patterson of Seattle's Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, and Eric Kniffin of Colorado Springs' Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie.
Besides Hobby Lobby, the other companies are: Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., J.E. Dunn Construction Co., Electric Mirror LLC and Continuant Inc. Conestoga Wood, like Hobby Lobby, was a party to the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. A 5-4 majority held that the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive insurance mandate as applied to closely held corporations and their religious owners violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Even if the five companies objected to all [U.S. Food and Drug Administration]-approved contraceptives, the subpoenas are not 'tailored' to help Washington prove standing,” Patterson wrote in the motion to quash the subpoenas. “They seek nationwide information and are therefore grossly overbroad.”
Lawyers for the companies called the subpoenas overbroad and said they “do not bother to ask for information specific to each company's Washington employees.”
Washington filed its lawsuit in October and argued that the Trump administration rules violated the First and Fifth amendments as well as civil rights protections. The state's attorney general is asking the district court to issue an injunction halting implementation of the rules.
In addition to Washington state, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed separate lawsuits challenging the rules. A hearing was held Dec. 12 in the California challenge, which has been joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia.
The court papers Hobby Lobby and the other companies filed are posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All5th Circuit Strikes Down Law Barring Handgun Sales to Adults Under 21
What’s at Stake in Supreme Court Case Over Religious Charter School?
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250