Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Armstrong v. Burwell
Citation: 269 F. Supp. 3d 1132Docket: Civil Action No. 13-cv-00563-RBJ
Court: District Court, D. Colorado; September 29, 2014; Federal District Court
A permanent injunction has been ordered, reflecting the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., regarding the application of the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The parties involved have stipulated to the injunction but cannot agree on its form, indicating potential future litigation if the law changes. The Court clarifies that it does not address any potential future statutory or regulatory changes but will apply the Hobby Lobby ruling to the plaintiffs in this case. Key points include: 1. The Court declares that the contraceptive mandate cannot be lawfully enforced against Cherry Creek Mortgage Co., Inc. or the individual plaintiffs. 2. The defendants, including their officers and employees, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the mandate against the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs are awarded their costs as prevailing parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and local rules. 4. Judgment will be entered accordingly. 5. Plaintiffs may file a motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) within 14 days of the judgment entry.