Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2014 United States Supreme Court case

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision

in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 . It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate , a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5–4 vote. The Court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of privately held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control . The ruling is considered to be part of the political controversy regarding the Affordable Care Act in the United States .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Federal law

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Federal law")
]

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Religious Freedom Restoration Act")
]

The United States Supreme Court ruled in _Employment Division v. Smith _ (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 _Reynolds v. United States _ decision, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. " He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny , because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In 1993, the US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's exercise of religion". The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to redefine exercise of religion as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in _Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita _ in 2006.

Affordable Care Act

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Affordable Care Act")
]

Of those Americans who have health insurance, most are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relies on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to specify what kinds of preventive care for women should be covered in certain employer-based health plans. HHS exempted religious employers (churches and their integrated auxiliaries, associations of churches, and any religious order), non-profit organizations that object to any required contraception, employers providing grandfathered plans (that have not had specific changes before March 23, 2010), and employers with fewer than 50 employees. The HRSA decided that all twenty contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should be covered. Companies that refuse are fined $100 per individual per day, or they can replace their health coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax.

Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties")
]

Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts company founded by billionaire David Green and owned by the Evangelical Christian Green family with about 21,000 employees. It provided health insurance covering the contraceptives Plan-B and Ella until it dropped its coverage in 2012, the year it filed its lawsuit.

The Hobby Lobby case also involved Mardel Christian and Educational Supply, which is owned by Mart Green , one of David's sons.

Hobby Lobby's case was consolidated with another case by Conestoga Wood Specialties , a furniture company owned by the Mennonite Hahn family that has about 1,000 employees, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom .

Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs")
]

The plaintiffs believed that life began at conception , and objected to their businesses providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four FDA -approved contraceptives that the plaintiffs believed prevented implantation of a fertilized egg . The plaintiffs believed the following forms of birth control constituted an abortion :

…