United States District Court, District of Columbia
JOHNSON WELDED PRODUCTS, INC., et al. Plaintiffs,
SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al. Defendants.
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge.
The Court has carefully considered Defendants' Objections to the Court's Proposed Order [ECF No. 8] and Plaintiffs' Response [ECF No. 9]. Defendants request, and plaintiffs object to, the inclusion in the injunction of the following paragraph:
ORDERED that this injunction and judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing herein prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes.
In similar cases brought by for-profit corporations challenging the contraceptive coverage requirement, several courts have entered orders containing the above-quoted language, with both parties' consent. E.g., Midwest Fastener Corp. v. Burwell, No. 1:13-cv-1337 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2014); Gilardi v. HHS, No. 1:13-cv-104 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2014); see also Joint Mot. for Entry of Inj. & J., Lindsay v. Burwell, No. 1:13-cv-1210 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2014); Joint Mot. for Entry of Inj. & J., Am. Pulverizer Co. v. HHS, No. 6:12-cv-3459 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 15, 2014). The Court does not believe that this language "adds ambiguity and confusion" to the injunction, which, with the parties' consent, already is limited to "the statute and ...