BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES
Supreme Court Cases
134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
Case Overview
Action
Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.
Facts/Syllabus
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the 鈥淕overnment [from] substantially burden[ing] a person鈥檚 exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability鈥 unless the Government 鈥渄emonstrates that application of the burden to the person鈥(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.鈥 42 U. S. C. 搂搂2000bb鈥1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers 鈥渁ny exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.鈥 搂2000cc鈥5(7)(A). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers鈥 group health plans to furnish 鈥減reventive care and screenings鈥 for women without 鈥渁ny cost sharing requirements,鈥 42 U. S. C. 搂300gg鈥13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer鈥檚 plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries. In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs 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. In separate actions, they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.