Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

== Background ==
=== Federal law ===
==== Religious Freedom Restoration Act ====
The United States Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Employment Division v. Smith]]'' (1990) that a person may not defy ''neutral laws of general applicability''{{efn|The meaning of ''neutral law of general applicability'' was [[Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah|elaborated by the court in 1993]].}} even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 ''[[Reynolds v. United States]]'' decision, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/decisions/Reynolds.htm|title = Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)|date = 1878|access-date = September 2, 2015|archive-date = July 11, 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150711013558/http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/decisions/Reynolds.htm|url-status = live}}</ref> " He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of [[strict scrutiny]], because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest.

In 1993, the US Congress responded by passing the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's{{efn|The [[Dictionary Act]] defines the word 'person' in any act of Congress to include corporations.}} exercise of religion".<ref name=NYTimes>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Supreme Court Hears Cases on Contraception Rule|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/q-and-a-on-challenges-to-health-laws-birth-control-requirement.html|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 25, 2014|archive-date=April 7, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407173056/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/q-and-a-on-challenges-to-health-laws-birth-control-requirement.html?_r=0|url-status=live}}</ref> The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the [[Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act]] (RLUIPA) to redefine ''exercise of religion'' as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in ''[[Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita]]'' in 2006.

==== Affordable Care Act ====
Of those Americans who have health insurance, most are covered by [[Private Option|employer-sponsored]] health insurance. In 2010, [[United States Congress|Congress]] passed the [[Affordable Care Act]] (ACA), which relies on the [[Health Resources and Services Administration]] (HRSA), part of the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|Department of Health and Human Services]] (HHS), to specify what kinds of preventive care for women should be covered in certain employer-based health plans. HHS exempted religious employers (churches and their integrated auxiliaries, associations of churches, and any religious order), non-profit organizations that object to any required contraception,<ref>{{cite web|title=High court worsens pain of Obamacare birth-control compromise|website=[[Chicago Tribune]] |url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-health-contraceptives01-20140701,0,3865443.story|access-date=July 3, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703122917/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-health-contraceptives01-20140701,0,3865443.story|archive-date=July 3, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> employers providing grandfathered plans (that have not had specific changes before March 23, 2010), and employers with fewer than 50 employees. The HRSA decided that all twenty contraceptives approved by the U.S. [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) should be covered.<ref>{{cite web|title=A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius|url=https://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html|work=HHS.gov|access-date=March 25, 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702150143/http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/01/20120120a.html|archive-date=July 2, 2014}}</ref> Companies that refuse are fined $100 per individual per day,<ref name=CNN>{{cite news|last=Mears|first=Bill|title=Justices to hear 'Hobby Lobby' case on Obamacare birth control rule|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate/|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=CNN|date=March 23, 2014|archive-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325131329/http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/21/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate|url-status=live}}</ref> or they can replace their health coverage with higher wages and a calibrated tax.

=== Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties ===
[[Hobby Lobby]] is an arts and crafts company founded by billionaire<ref>{{cite news|last1=O'Connor|first1=Clare|title=Hobby Lobby Fallout: Catholic Soy Milk Mogul Won't Cover Drugs That 'Prevent Procreation'|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-fallout-catholic-soy-milk-mogul-wont-cover-drugs-that-prevent-procreation/|access-date=Jul 7, 2014|work=Forbes|date=Jul 3, 2014|archive-date=July 7, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140707015102/http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-fallout-catholic-soy-milk-mogul-wont-cover-drugs-that-prevent-procreation/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[David Green (entrepreneur)|David Green]] and owned by the [[Evangelical Christian]] Green family with about 21,000 employees.<ref name=CNN/> It provided health insurance covering the contraceptives  [[Levonorgestrel|Plan-B]] and [[Ulipristal acetate|Ella]] until it dropped its coverage in 2012, the year it filed its lawsuit.<ref>{{cite news|last=Woodward|first=Brian|title=Hobby Lobby provided emergency contraceptives before they opposed them|url=http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them|access-date=March 30, 2014|newspaper=Red Dirt Report|date=March 27, 2014|archive-date=March 31, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140331045311/http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rutten|first=Tim|title=Hobby Lobby case could cause huge legal, social disruption: Tim Rutten|url=http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140328/hobby-lobby-case-could-cause-huge-legal-social-disruption-tim-rutten|access-date=March 30, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Daily News|date=March 28, 2014|archive-date=May 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140514135556/http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140328/hobby-lobby-case-could-cause-huge-legal-social-disruption-tim-rutten|url-status=live}}</ref>  The Hobby Lobby case also involved Mardel Christian and Educational Supply, which is owned by [[Mart Green]], one of David's sons.

Hobby Lobby's case was consolidated with another case by [[Conestoga Wood Specialties]], a furniture company owned by the [[Mennonite]] Hahn family that has about 1,000 employees, represented by the [[Alliance Defending Freedom]].<ref>{{cite web|last1=Cassidy|first1=Suzanne|title=Meet the major legal players in the Conestoga Wood Specialties Supreme Court case|url=http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/meet-the-major-legal-players-in-the-conestoga-wood-specialties/article_302bc8e2-b379-11e3-b669-001a4bcf6878.html|website=Lancaster Online|access-date=30 January 2015|archive-date=1 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170301035324/http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/meet-the-major-legal-players-in-the-conestoga-wood-specialties/article_302bc8e2-b379-11e3-b669-001a4bcf6878.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs ====
The plaintiffs believed that life began at [[Fertilisation|conception]] which they equated to [[fertilization]], and objected to their businesses providing health insurance coverage to their female employees of four [[Food and Drug Administration|FDA]]-approved [[birth control|contraceptives]] that the plaintiffs believed prevented [[implantation (human embryo)|implantation of a fertilized egg]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Carroll|first=Aaron E.|date=June 30, 2014|title=How Hobby Lobby ruling could limit access to birth control|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/upshot/how-hobby-lobby-ruling-could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html|access-date=July 2, 2014|archive-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701182059/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/upshot/how-hobby-lobby-ruling-could-limit-access-to-birth-control.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The plaintiffs believed the following forms of birth control constituted an [[abortion]]:<ref>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|date=June 30, 2014|title=Supreme Court rejects contraceptives mandate for some corporations. Justices rule in favor of Hobby Lobby|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html|access-date=July 2, 2014|archive-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701141819/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Barnes|first=Robert|date=June 30, 2014|title=Supreme Court sides with employers over birth control mandate|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html|access-date=July 2, 2014|archive-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701174801/http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-sides-with-employers-over-birth-control-mandate/2014/06/30/852e5c84-fc61-11e3-b1f4-8e77c632c07b_story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Richey|first=Warren|date=June 30, 2014|title=Supreme Court rules against contraceptive mandate in Hobby Lobby case|newspaper=The Christian Science Monitor|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0630/Supreme-Court-rules-against-contraceptive-mandate-in-Hobby-Lobby-case-video|access-date=July 4, 2014|archive-date=July 4, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140704113327/http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0630/Supreme-Court-rules-against-contraceptive-mandate-in-Hobby-Lobby-case-video|url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[Emergency contraception|Emergency contraceptive]] pills
** [[levonorgestrel]] (sold under the brand name Plan B among others)
** [[ulipristal acetate]] (sold under the brand name Ella among others)
* [[Intrauterine device]]s (IUDs)
** [[copper IUD]]s (sold under the brand name ParaGard among others)
** [[Hormonal IUDs]] (sold under the brand names Mirena and Skyla among others)

=== Lower court history ===
In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma]] against enforcement of the contraception rule based on the RFRA and the [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the First Amendment.  On November 19, 2012, U.S. District Judge [[Joe L. Heaton]] denied Hobby Lobby's request for a preliminary injunction.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10390225281706554853&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|title=Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1278 - Dist. Court, WD Oklahoma 2012 - Google Scholar|access-date=2016-10-17|archive-date=2020-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107053836/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10390225281706554853&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|url-status=live}}</ref>  On December 26, 2012, Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] issued an [[in-chambers opinion]] denying an injunction pending appeal.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1721474507433667393&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|title=Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 133 S. Ct. 641 - Supreme Court 2012 - Google Scholar|access-date=2016-10-17|archive-date=2017-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170423171936/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1721474507433667393&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|url-status=live}}</ref>  In March 2013, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] granted a hearing of the case. In June, the appeals court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a person who has [[religious freedom]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16964735894130305098&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|title=Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F. 3d 1114 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2013 - Google Scholar|access-date=2016-10-17|archive-date=2021-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214231909/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16964735894130305098&hl=en&as_sdt=2006|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Reach/> Circuit Judge [[Timothy Tymkovich]] wrote for the five-judge [[en banc]] majority, over a three-judge dissent.<ref>[http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_hobby_lobby_v_sebelius.pdf ''Recent Cases: Tenth Circuit Holds For-Profit Corporate Plaintiffs Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Substantial Burden on Religious Claim,''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151001132022/http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol127_hobby_lobby_v_sebelius.pdf |date=2015-10-01 }} 127 Harv. L. Rev. 1025 (2014).</ref> [[Neil Gorsuch]] voted with the majority and also wrote an opinion on the case.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-notable-opinions-20170131-story.html|title=Hobby Lobby case among Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's notable opinions|first=Tribune news|last=services|website=chicagotribune.com|access-date=2019-07-04|archive-date=2019-07-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704192523/https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-supreme-court-nominee-neil-gorsuch-notable-opinions-20170131-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The court ordered the government to stop enforcement of the contraception rule on Hobby Lobby and sent the case back to the district court, which granted preliminary injunction in July. In September, the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web|title=Case Timeline|url=http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/the-case/case-timeline/|work=hobbylobbycase.com|access-date=March 25, 2014|archive-date=March 26, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326062651/http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/the-case/case-timeline/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Two other federal appeals courts ruled against the [[Birth control|contraception]] coverage rule, while another two upheld it.<ref name=CNN/>

The case was previously titled ''Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby''. [[Sylvia Mathews Burwell|Sylvia Burwell]] was automatically substituted as petitioner when she was approved by the [[United States Senate]] as [[United States Secretary of Health and Human Services|the Secretary of Health and Human Services]] after being nominated by [[President of the United States|President]] [[Barack Obama]] to replace [[Kathleen Sebelius]] following Sebelius' resignation on April 10, 2014.