Samaritan Ministries International, et al. v. Alice T. Kane

Albuquerque, New Mexico, civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiffs claiming religious discrimination.



The Affordable Care Act ("ACA”) contains an insurance mandate that requires applicable individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage. Samaritan Ministries International ("Samaritan”) is a nonprofit healthcare sharing ministry ("HCSM”) whose members are exempt from the ACA's insurance mandate. Among other things, an ACA-exempt HCSM is comprised of members with "a common set of . . . religious beliefs” who "share medical expenses . . . in accordance with those beliefs

and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii)(II). "Samaritan is among the first and largest” ACA-exempt HCSMs. J.A. vol. I at 61. It has members across the country, including "918 members in New Mexico as of October 1, 2023.”



Samaritan "limits its membership to likeminded Christians” who live "by biblical principles,” attend church at least three times per month, and "abstain from illegal substances[] and sexual activity outside of traditional biblical marriage.” Id. at 55–56. It operates by "receiv[ing] information about members with current health burdens and then ask[ing] fellow members to help bear and share those burdens through funds, notes, and prayers.” Id. at 52. Samaritan collects "[s]uggested monthly contributions from members” but its members are not "legally obligated to contribute funds” and "remain legally responsible for their own medical bills.”



In December 2023, Samaritan and ten of its New Mexico members sued Defendant in federal district court. Plaintiffs amended their complaint twice. Their second amended complaint raised twelve claims alleging, under § 1983, that

Defendant supervised an "anti-HCSM campaign” that violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act.



For relief, Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Defendant "from enforcing New Mexico insurance laws against[] or exercising regulatory authority over” them, a declaratory judgment that her "threatened actions” against them were unconstitutional and that "Samaritan's ministry qualifies as an HCSM under the ACA,” and various damages.



Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that she had neither acted against Samaritan nor threatened to do so, and that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, concluding that Plaintiffs "failed to allege an actual or imminent injury that is concre[]te and particularized for any of the twelve counts.”

Case dismissed.



Affirmed