Supreme Court Allows Closely Held Corporations to Invoke Religious Objections Against Providing Employee Contraceptive Coverage

by Foley Hoag LLP

In a 5-4 decision, the United State Supreme Court ruled Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., that closely held for-profit corporations may invoke religious objections to exclude contraceptive coverage from the health insurance they purchase for their employees.  The Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, authored by Justice Alito, has important implications for both closely held for-profit corporations and their employees.

Keys to the Hobby Lobby Ruling

Under the ruling, if owners of closely held corporations hold “sincerely held” religious beliefs, the corporation is exempt from its obligation to comply with at least certain portions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and its regulations if those ACA obligations conflict substantially with the owners’ religious beliefs.  In the longer term, it is possible that the Court’s legal reasoning in Hobby Lobby could permit closely held corporations to assert faith-based exemptions from their obligations to comply with other federal laws.  Notably, however, the Court’s ruling was limited to closely held corporations, and took no position on whether publicly-traded corporations are entitled to assert such claims.

Notwithstanding the Court’s decision, employees of closely held corporations whose owners have religious objections to contraceptives may ultimately retain access to these ACA-authorized health care benefits.  The Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby — coupled with an important concurring opinion filed by Justice Kennedy — suggests that if closely held corporations have religious objections to paying for contraceptive coverage, it is permissible for the government, insurers, or health plan administrators to pay those costs instead.  The federal government has already authorized such an approach to provide contraceptive access to employees of certain religious-based non-profit organizations.

The ruling was the latest in a series of high-profile cases involving disputes over the implementation of the ACA, commonly known as Obamacare.   In Hobby Lobby, the federal Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) issued regulations requiring all employer-funded health plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives.  The owners of Hobby Lobby, a closely held for-profit craft store chain with over 13,000 employees, objected as a matter of religious principle to being required to fund employee health insurance that provided coverage for four specific contraceptive methods (out of the twenty approved by the FDA).  

The Court’s Reasoning in Hobby Lobby

The Court’s decision required it to interpret a federal statute known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).  This statute places limits on the extent to which government actions can burden religious exercise.  After concluding that RFRA covers both closely held corporations and individuals, the Court needed to decide two legal questions.  The first RFRA question was whether the HHS regulation served a “compelling governmental interest” — here, ensuring that female employees had access to contraceptive coverage.  The Court agreed that this interest was sufficiently “compelling”.  

The second RFRA question was whether the HHS regulation — mandating that all employer health plans cover contraceptives — was the “least burdensome” way for HHS to accomplish that goal.  Crucially, the Court concluded that it was not.  The Court held that the HHS regulation constituted a significant burden on the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners (in the form of financial penalties if they did not comply), and noted that closely held corporations should not be forced to make “a difficult choice: either give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits, available to other competitors, of operating as a corporation.”

Importantly, the Court also concluded that HHS had alternative (and less burdensome) option for achieving its goal of ensuring access to contraceptive coverage. In specific, the Court noted that HHS has already established an “accommodation” process for certain religious non-profit employers who object to having their employer-based health plans pay for contraceptives.  When a religious non-profit employer files the accommodation with HHS, its employees remains entitled to contraceptive coverage — but the coverage itself is paid for separately by the insurer.

Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote between the ideological wings of the Court, filed an important concurring opinion to clarify that the majority ruling did not have the “breadth and sweep” that the dissent suggested.  The Kennedy concurrence focused specifically on the HHS non-profit accommodation option, and implied that it could (and should) be expanded to closely held for-profit corporations.

Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in whole or in part), in which she strongly criticized the scope of the majority opinion.  The dissent predicted that the Court’s reasoning would allow all for-profit corporations —not just those closely held— to assert religious beliefs as a way to exempt themselves from compliance with a variety of federal laws.  “Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations,” Justice Ginsburg wrote, “its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private.”  Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.

Potential Implications of Hobby Lobby for Corporations and Employees

In the short term, HHS may respond to the Court’s decision by extending the religious non-profit accommodation option to closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby, in an effort to ensure that any employees affected by the Court’s ruling will continue to receive ACA contraceptive benefits.  Congressional action is also a possibility. Those impacted by this ruling should monitor whether HHS issues additional guidance to assist affected employers in meeting their now-modified ACA compliance obligations.

The Hobby Lobby decision may also have broader implications beyond the specific issue of who is required to provide ACA-compliant contraceptive coverage.  Justice Alito sought to limit the opinion’s scope— warning that it did not constitute a blank check for-profit corporations to “opt out of any law . . . they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious belief,” and cautioning that its reasoning may not even extend to other insurance mandates (such as immunization coverage).   However, it will be worth watching whether any corporations successfully deploy Hobby Lobby as a precedent in future cases where the religious beliefs of a closely held corporation conflict with its statutory or regulatory obligations.

Finally, this will not be the last major case on ACA implementation.  As noted above, Hobby Lobby promotes the HHS “accommodation” process as a preferred alternative (in these circumstances) to a regulatory mandate.  Yet there is pending federal litigation — including the closely-watched case Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Sebelius — over whether the HHS accommodation process itself is legal.  The range and number of pending ACA-related lawsuits make it imperative for health insurers, human resources professionals, and benefits managers alike to continue monitoring these cases closely, as their outcomes will have an impact on both plan design and implementation.

Summer associate Nathan B. Campbell assisted with the research and drafting of this Alert.


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.

© Foley Hoag LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP

Foley Hoag LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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.