BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., et al.
Argued March 25, 2014—Decided June 30, 20141
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” 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.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which, as relevant here, requires specified …show more content…
The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception was in violation the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 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 Supreme Court also denied relief, and the plaintiffs filed for an enhance hearing of the Court of Appeals. The en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and held that corporations were “persons” for the purposes of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and had protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Argued March 25, 2014—Decided June 30, 20141
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” 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.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).
At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which, as relevant here, requires specified …show more content…
The plaintiffs argued that the requirement that the employment-based group health care plan cover contraception was in violation the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 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 Supreme Court also denied relief, and the plaintiffs filed for an enhance hearing of the Court of Appeals. The en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and held that corporations were “persons” for the purposes of Religious Freedom Restoration Act and had protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First