BREAKING: Supreme Court 5-4 Finds in Favor of Hobby Lobby

The Supreme Court majority found today that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, to the extent that it applies to closely-held corporations, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Affordable Care Act required that employers provide coverage for 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including four that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the mother’s womb. This is known as the “contraceptive mandate.”

The HHS has already exempted religious employers and religious non-profits from complying with the contraceptive mandate if they object to doing so on religious grounds.

Two closely held, for-profit companies — Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialities and their owners — challenged the mandate as applied to them on the ground that it violated the owners’ religious beliefs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) ruled against Conestoga, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming) found in favor of Hobby Lobby.

The Supreme Court decision issued today held, 5-4, that even for-profit businesses are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” There is an exception if the government can show “that application of the burden . . . (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest.”

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.

Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence.

Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor, and joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan as to all but Part III-C-1 (arguing that for-profit corporations cannot “exercise religion”). Justices Breyer and Kagan filed a separate dissent.

Some quick highlights from the majority decision:

*For-profit corporations are capable of “exercising religion.”

*The contraceptive mandate forces the company owners to violate their religious beliefs that life begins at conception.

*It is not a viable solution to tell these companies that they can forgo providing health insurance coverage at all, given the owners’ beliefs that providing health insurance is consistent with their religious beliefs, and given the monetary penalties associated with failing to provide coverage.

*Even if providing access to the four contraceptive methods were a compelling governmental interest, there are other ways for the government to achieve its interest, such as directly providing coverage to the women who want it, or extending the same exception that it has made for religious non-profits to for-profits.

*The decision’s rationale does not necessarily apply to companies with religious objections to, for example, providing coverage for vaccinations or blood transfusions, or protect religious for-profit employers from claims for unlawful discrimination.

We’ll soon have an update to include the Supreme Court’s other decision issued today,  Harris v. Quinn.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.