Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

=== Argument and deliberation ===
Oral arguments were held on March 25, 2014, for 30 minutes more than the usual one hour.<ref name=NYTimes/>
The three women in the court focused their questioning on Hobby Lobby's lawyer, [[Paul Clement]], while the men focused on the administration's lawyer, Solicitor General [[Donald B. Verrilli Jr.]]<ref>{{cite news|last=Condon|first=Stephanie|title=Hobby Lobby case fires up women, conservatives on Supreme Court|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hobby-lobby-case-fires-up-women-conservatives-on-supreme-court/|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=CBS News|date=March 25, 2014|archive-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325225446/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hobby-lobby-case-fires-up-women-conservatives-on-supreme-court/|url-status=live}}</ref> Justice Sotomayor quoted the ruling from [[United States v. Lee (1982)|''United States v. Lee'' (1982)]] saying that an employer can't deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. Clement replied that ''Lee'' does not apply because it was a challenge against a tax rather than against a significant burden. Sotomayor said that instead of paying the burden of the penalty, Hobby Lobby could replace its health care with the equivalent expense of higher wages and a calibrated tax, which the government would use to pay for the employees' health care.<ref name=Proceedings>{{cite web|title=Proceedings|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|work=supremecourt.gov|access-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326024552/http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|archive-date=March 26, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Feldman|first=Noah|title=Feldman: Hobby Lobby verdict may be a surprise|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57738599-82/religious-hobby-lobby-court.html.csp|access-date=March 28, 2014|newspaper=The Salt Lake Tribune|date=March 27, 2014|archive-date=March 29, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329080724/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57738599-82/religious-hobby-lobby-court.html.csp|url-status=live}}</ref> Near the end of Clement's argument, Justice Kennedy expressed concern for the rights of the employees who may not agree with the religious beliefs of their employers.<ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Struggles In Hobby Lobby Case With Question Of Companies' Religious Rights|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5027527.html|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=March 25, 2014|author=Ryan J. Reilly|author2=Laura Bassett|archive-date=March 26, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326011941/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5027527.html|url-status=live}}</ref> When Verrilli argued that the ruling in ''[[Cutter v. Wilkinson]]'' requires the court to weigh the impact on third parties in every RFRA case, Justice Scalia said that the RFRA does not require the court to balance the interest of the religious objector to the interest of other individuals. Verilli returned to ''Lee,'' saying that granting an exemption to an employer should not impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.<ref name=Proceedings/><ref>{{cite web|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|title=Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-recap-one-hearing-two-dramas/|work=SCOTUSblog|access-date=March 25, 2014|date=2014-03-25|archive-date=2014-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326032506/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-recap-one-hearing-two-dramas/|url-status=live}}</ref>