O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Eighth Circuit

O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

766 F.3d 862, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297, 2014 WL 4401187

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 8, 2014

DocketNo. 12-3357

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 766 F.3d 862 (O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Brien v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 766 F.3d 862, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297, 2014 WL 4401187 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S.-,-, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2785, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), the appellants’ complaint submits a facially plausible claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(a) to (e). See. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). It thus appears unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining claims, see Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 2785, and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance particularly counsels us not to give unnecessary answers to constitutional questions, see, e.g., Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345-48, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring).

We reverse the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of the appellants’ RFRA claim, vacate the dismissal of the appellants’ remaining claims without expressing any view on the merits, and remand for further proceedings consistent with Hobby Lobby.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In light of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S.-,-, 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2785, 189 L.Ed.2d 675 (2014), the appellants’ complaint submits a facially plausible claim for relief under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(a) to (e). See. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). It thus appears unnecessary to address the appellants’ remaining claims, see Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 2785, and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance particularly counsels us not to give unnecessary answers to constitutional questions, see, e.g., Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345-48, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring).

We reverse the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of the appellants’ RFRA claim, vacate the dismissal of the appellants’ remaining claims without expressing any view on the merits, and remand for further proceedings consistent with Hobby Lobby.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 F.3d 862, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297, 2014 WL 4401187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-us-department-of-health-human-services-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack