Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
573 U. S. ____ (2014) (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) protects closely held for-profit corporations, and a federal regulation that substantially burdens the sincere religious exercise of their owners must be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.
Facts:
- Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are closely held, for-profit corporations owned and operated by the Green and Hahn families, respectively.
- The Green and Hahn families are devout Christians who believe that human life begins at conception and that it is immoral to facilitate any action that causes the termination of a fertilized egg.
- The owners object on religious grounds to four specific contraceptive methods that they believe can act as abortifacients by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires these employers to offer group health plans that provide certain preventive care, including all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, without cost-sharing.
- The owners operate their businesses in accordance with their religious principles, as stated in their corporate documents and demonstrated through business practices like closing on Sundays.
- If the companies refused to provide coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives, they would face substantial financial penalties under the ACA, amounting to millions of dollars per year.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hahns and their company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, sued HHS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a preliminary injunction against the contraceptive mandate.
- The trial court denied the injunction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise.
- The Greens and their companies, Hobby Lobby and Mardel, sued HHS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, also seeking a preliminary injunction.
- The trial court denied their injunction.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the corporations were 'persons' under RFRA and were likely to succeed on their claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflicting decisions between the circuit courts of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, which requires closely held for-profit corporations to provide health insurance coverage for certain contraceptives, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 when the corporations' owners have sincere religious objections to those contraceptives?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes, the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to these corporations. RFRA's protections extend to closely held for-profit corporations because protecting a corporation's religious freedom serves to protect the rights of the individuals who own and control it. The mandate imposes a substantial burden on the owners' exercise of religion by forcing them to choose between violating their sincere religious beliefs or facing severe financial penalties. Assuming the government has a compelling interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to contraceptives, the mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. A less restrictive alternative already exists in the accommodation HHS provided for religious non-profits, which ensures employees receive coverage without requiring the employer to contract for or fund the objectionable services.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Yes. While the government has a compelling interest in protecting the health of female employees, it has not met its burden under RFRA of showing that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. An existing, workable, and less restrictive framework—the accommodation already devised by HHS for religious non-profits—is available to provide the same contraceptive coverage without impinging on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. RFRA requires the government to use this less restrictive means when it is already in place and serves the government's interest equally well.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
No, the contraceptive mandate does not violate RFRA. For-profit, commercial enterprises do not exercise religion and are not protected by RFRA, which was intended to restore pre-Smith jurisprudence that never recognized such rights for commercial entities. Furthermore, the mandate does not impose a substantial burden, as the connection between providing a general health insurance plan and an employee's independent choice to use a particular contraceptive is too attenuated. The government has a compelling interest in promoting public health and gender equality, and the exemption sought by the corporations would harm third parties—their female employees—by denying them seamless access to health benefits guaranteed by law.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan
No. We agree with the dissent that the challenge fails on the merits but do not decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners can bring claims under RFRA. Because the mandate survives scrutiny under RFRA's test, it is unnecessary to resolve the threshold question of corporate personhood for religious freedom purposes.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that closely held for-profit corporations are considered "persons" capable of exercising religion under RFRA, significantly broadening the statute's scope beyond individuals and religious non-profits. The ruling strengthens religious freedom claims for commercial entities by applying a strict interpretation of the "substantial burden" and "least restrictive means" prongs of the RFRA test. This precedent invites future challenges by other closely held businesses to a wide range of federal regulations on religious grounds, potentially affecting areas such as employment law, public accommodations, and healthcare beyond the contraceptive mandate.
