Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The case had its origins in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010. The ACA requires most employers to provide health insurance coverage that includes contraceptive services, such as pills, devices, and sterilization procedures, at no extra cost to their female employees. The federal government exempted houses of worship and certain religious non-profits from the mandate, but not for-profit companies.

Hobby Lobby Stores, a family-owned chain of arts and crafts stores based in Oklahoma, objected to the requirement to cover four out of the twenty FDA-approved contraceptives that it deemed to be abortifacients, or drugs that terminate a fertilized egg. The Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby, argued that the mandate violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, as well as the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits the government from imposing a substantial burden on a person’s religious beliefs unless it is necessary to further a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.

The Obama administration countered that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate was a vital public health measure that promoted gender equality and prevented unintended pregnancies, which can lead to higher rates of maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. Moreover, the administration argued that Hobby Lobby, as a secular, for-profit entity, could not assert a religious belief or conscience to avoid a neutral law of general applicability.

The case went through several levels of judicial review. In 2013, a federal district court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, holding that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate placed a substantial burden on the Greens’ religious beliefs and that the government had not met its burden of proving that the mandate was the least restrictive means of achieving its goals. The court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the government from enforcing the mandate against Hobby Lobby’s health insurance plan.

The Obama administration appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court’s finding of a substantial burden but rejected its least restrictive means analysis. The court held that the government had a compelling interest in ensuring that women had access to contraceptive coverage but that it had other ways to achieve that goal, such as providing the coverage directly or through a third-party administrator.

The case then reached the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 25, 2014. The Court was asked to decide whether the RFRA applied to corporations, whether the ACA’s contraceptive mandate imposed a substantial burden on the Greens’ religious beliefs, and whether the government had met its burden of proving that the mandate was the least restrictive means of achieving its goals.

On June 30, 2014, the Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and its sister company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, which also challenged the contraceptive mandate. The Court held that closely-held corporations could assert religious objections to certain forms of contraception and that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate imposed a substantial burden on the Greens’ religious beliefs. The Court did not decide whether the government had met its burden of proof, as it held that there were other ways to achieve the government’s goal of providing contraceptive coverage without infringing on the corporations’ religious beliefs.

The decision drew sharp reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Advocates of religious freedom hailed it as a victory for conscience rights and the protection of faith-based entities from government coercion. Critics of the decision accused the Court of elevating corporate interests over women’s health and reproductive rights, and of setting a dangerous precedent for future claims of religious exemptions to civil rights laws.

In the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision, several other cases were filed by for-profit companies and non-profits challenging the contraceptive mandate under the RFRA. Some of these cases resulted in settlements or court orders allowing the companies to obtain alternative forms of contraception coverage, while others are still pending. The issue of religious freedom in the workplace remains a contentious one that will likely continue to unfold in the years to come.