Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Facts

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. RFRA’s enactment came three years after this Court’s decision in Employment Div. v. Smith which largely repudiated the method of analyzing free-exercise claims that had been used in cases like Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder. Those decisions used a balancing test that took into account whether the challenged action imposed a substantial burden on the practice of religion and if it did, whether it was needed to serve a compelling government interest. In Smith, the Court rejected the balancing test and observed that use of the Sherbert test whenever a person objected on religious grounds to the enforcement of a generally applicable law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Congress enacted RFRA. Under RFRA if the Government substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion, the person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person - (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” HHS regulations promulgated under Obamacare requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer “a group health plan or group health insurance coverage” that provides “minimum essential coverage.” If a plan fails to comply with the minimum requirements, the employer may be required to pay $100 per day for each affected “individual.” If the employer decides to stop providing health insurance altogether and at least one full-time employee enrolls in a health plan and qualifies for a subsidy on one of the government-run ACA exchanges, the employer must pay $2,000 per year for each of its full-time employees. Obamacare requires employers to provide contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. Four of those methods may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. HHS has effectively exempted certain religious nonprofit organizations, described under HHS regulations as “eligible organizations,” from the contraceptive mandate. Norman and Elizabeth Hahn and their three sons are devout members of the Mennonite Church, a Christian denomination. The Mennonite Church opposes abortion and believes that “the fetus in its earliest stages . . . shares humanity with those who conceived it.” Norman owns Conestoga Wood Specialties, which has 950 employees. It is a close corporation. The Hahns believe that they are required to run their business “in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral principles.” The Hahns and Conestoga (P) sued HHS (D) and other federal officials and agencies under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA-approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg. David and Barbara Green and their three children are Christians who own and operate two family businesses. David Green started an arts-and-crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. There are now 500 Hobby Lobby stores, and the company has more than 13,000 employees. Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. One of David’s sons started an affiliated business, Mardel, which operates 35 Christian bookstores and employs close to 400 people. Mardel is also organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. Both businesses are closely held, and David, Barbara, and their children retain exclusive control of both companies. Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to “honoring the Lord in all they do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” Hobby Lobby and Mardel stores close on Sundays, even though the Greens calculate that they lose millions in sales annually by doing so. Each family member has signed a pledge to run the businesses in accordance with the family’s religious beliefs and to use the family assets to support Christian ministries. The Greens believe that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point. The Greens, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel (P) sued HHS (D) and other federal agencies and officials to challenge the contraceptive mandate under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause. For the Hahns, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction, and the Third Circuit also rejected the claims brought by the Hahns themselves because it concluded that the mandate does not impose any requirements on the Hahns in their personal capacity. For the Greens, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction, and the Tenth Circuit granted that motion and reversed in a divided opinion. The Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.