Burwell v Hobby Lobby

In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,
it was argued that closely owned businesses
had the right to exercise their religion freely and might choose
not to offer certain types of contraception coverage to their employees
if doing so would conflict with their religious convictions.

Plaintiff

Claimed that covering these forms of contraception went against their religious convictions, objected to providing coverage for them. The main claim made by Hobby Lobby was that the ACA's mandate for contraceptive coverage infringed on their right to religious freedom under the RFRA. The business argued that certain forms of contraception shouldn't be covered by insurance (plaintiff argument).

Defendant

claimed that the requirements for contraceptive coverage were necessary to guarantee women's access to crucial medical services. The contraceptive mandate was cited as the main justification for the US government's position that women needed to have access to basic healthcare services. And that undermining the ACA's goals and efficacy by allowing corporations a religious exemption (defendant argument).

Constitutional Questions

  • Since the lower courts reached conflicting conclusions regarding whether for-profit businesses, particularly closely held ones, could claim a religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act's requirement that they cover contraception, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because it raised a significant and divisive question regarding how to interpret the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  • The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because it raised a significant and divisive question regarding how to interpret the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Supreme Courts Decision

  • The court ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor. claiming that the right to religious freedom enjoyed by for-profit corporations was hampered by the contraceptive mandate supported by Patient Protection and Affordable. They used this method of decoding because the owners of Hobby Lobby claimed that requiring their staff to use birth control went against their religious principles. It was a 5 to 4 vote.
  • Justice Antony Kennedy argued in the concurring opinion that the government could have found a less onerous way to grant women access to contraception without interfering with corporate religious freedoms. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand, dissented from both the conclusions and the logic of the majority opinion in their dissenting opinions. The majority decision, they claimed, had expanded corporate rights in an unheard-of way.
  • Since the case's resolution increased religious freedom at the expense of women's reproductive rights, many people think that the case was unfairly resolved. Additionally, it created a risky precedent for businesses looking to get around other federal laws. It raised the issue of whether these corporations qualified for protections for religious freedom under the RFRA and the First Amendment. Legal experts contend that this RFRA interpretation was too broad and at odds with the law's original goals.

    • Significance of the Case

    The case was significant because it reduced the ACA's mandate that all employers cover contraceptives and broadened the scope of corporate rights to exercise their religion. It had implications for how much contraceptive coverage was required by the ACA, the rights of corporations to practice their religion, and ongoing discussions about the place of corporations in American society.

    Bibliography

    • Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (n.d.). Quimbee. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc
    • Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia. (n.d.). https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-2014#:~:text=In%20the%202014% 20case%20Burwell,corporations'%20right%20to%20religious%20freedom
    • National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). The constitution of the United States: A transcription. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved March 12, 2023, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript