Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term; 13-354: 10th Cir.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Accusing the majority of ignoring the “disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others,” she asserted that “the exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents,” and it “would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the [PP]ACA would otherwise secure.”. These two businesses have expanded over the years. The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).

However, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that the businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the contraceptive requirement substantially burdened their free exercise of religion. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. The Green family owns and operates Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts chain with over 500 stores and over 13,000 employees.

Hobby Lobby arts and crafts stores offer the best in project, party and home supplies. The decision of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require contraceptive coverage for employees must be strictly scrutinized under RLUIPA. 2000bb et seq., provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well. the Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a significant decision because it supports the notion that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs that can be imposed on their employees, to their employees’ detriment. Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? The RFRA merely made that aspect of the balancing test explicit. v. Barnette, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. The Third and Tenth Circuit Courts split on whether for-profit companies have a First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. In 2012, the US Department of Health and Human Services FREE SHIPPING* on orders of $50 or more. The first decision … Hobby Lobby Stores Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 25, 2014 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 30, 2014 (Part 1) in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

The case could have been decided in favor of HHS on the merits, as enunciated in the first part of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. 2000bb-1(a) and (b). They also believe that life begins at conception and that they must not facilitate the destruction of an embryo and there is no dispute that their beliefs are sincere. Specifically, Congress’s intention in drafting the RFRA was merely to restore the compelling-interest “balancing test” that the Supreme Court had used until 1990 to determine whether generally applicable and religiously neutral laws that incidentally place a substantial burden on a person’s religious practices are inconsistent with the free-exercise clause. Religious employers such as churches are exempt and HHS has crafted an accommodation that effectively exempts non-profit religious organizations that attests to having religious objections to the contraceptive mandate.

Forty-five years ago, David Green started an arts and crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. What is important to note is that the Court’s decision validates a for-profit company owner’s religious beliefs, while doing actual, practical harm to the lives of the employees who may not share the religious beliefs of the owners. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of tax penalties, which the district court denied and a two-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

The fact that HHS created an exemption for non-profit organizations that hold conservative beliefs is the lynchpin of this case. [There is l]ittle doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood—combined with its other errors in construing RFRA—invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith.

That is reflected in their company’s mission and value statements which make it clear that in seeking to make a reasonable profit, they must do so in a way that reflects their Christian heritage. By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Under that standard the contraceptive requirement was not the least restrictive means to meet a compelling governmental interest. In accordance with their religious beliefs, the Hahns and the Greens provide generous group health insurance plans for their employees, but they object to offering coverage for four methods of contraception that may operate after conception. In reaching that conclusion, the court was careful to point out that it was not entitled to determine whether the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs were “mistaken or insubstantial.” “Instead,” the court insisted (citing the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division [1981]), “our ‘narrow function…in this context is to determine’ whether the line drawn” by the plaintiffs—between what was consistent with their religion and what was not—“reflects ‘an honest conviction’…and there is no dispute that it does.”, Finally, the court held that the government had failed to establish that the contraceptive mandate was the least-restrictive means available to advance its interest, because there were conceivable—and indeed already existing—alternatives that, unlike the mandate, would not substantially burden the plaintiffs’ religious exercise. Furthermore, various Supreme Court decisions since 1993 had taken for granted that religious nonprofit corporations and other institutions (such as churches) could be persons under the RFRA and the free-exercise clause, and HHS itself had conceded in a brief for the present case that the RFRA could apply to nonprofit corporations as “persons.” If person as used in the RFRA applied to individuals and nonprofit corporations, the court reasoned, it must also apply to for-profit corporations, because “no known understanding of the term ‘person’ includes some but not all corporations.”, Given that for-profit corporations are persons under the RFRA, the court continued, it remained to determine whether the contraceptive mandate constituted a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the three corporations and their owners and whether the government had demonstrated that the mandate was the least-restrictive means at its disposal to advance its interest (the court assumed without argument that the government’s interest was “compelling”). David Green is the founder of Hobby Lobby Stores; Green’s son Mart operated Mardel Christian and Educational Supply; and the Hahn family owned Conestoga Wood Specialties. Thus, companies should not be forced to compromise their own morality by allowing their employees to have contraceptives, which the heads of the company believe are immoral.

The second opinion addresses two cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. No.13-354 and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell No. Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.