Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

=== Majority opinion ===
[[File:Samuel Alito official photo.jpg|thumb|left|185px|Justice [[Samuel Alito]] was the author of the Court's majority opinion.]]
On June 30, 2014, [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[Samuel Alito]] delivered the judgment of the court. Four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) joined him to strike down the HHS mandate, as applied to [[closely held corporation]]s with religious objections, and to prevent the plaintiffs from being compelled to provide contraception under their healthcare plans. The ruling was reached on statutory grounds, citing the RFRA, because the mandate was not the "least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest. The ruling did not address Hobby Lobby's claims under the [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html|title=Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case - CNNPolitics|author=Bill Mears and Tom Cohen|website=CNN|date=30 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112015604/https://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception/index.html|archive-date=November 12, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Legislative Attorney Cynthia Brown |title=Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of ''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.'' at Summary and pages 1 and 8. |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43654.pdf |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |access-date=December 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926090539/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43654.pdf |archive-date=September 26, 2020 |date=November 12, 2015}}</ref>

The court argued that the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of shareholders, officers, and employees.<ref>{{ussc|name=Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.|volume=573|year=|docket=13-354}}, slip op. at 24 (2014).</ref> It said that "allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 24, restated in and quoted from p 27|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered ''persons'' under the RFRA. It noted that the HHS treats ''nonprofit'' corporations as ''persons'' within the meaning of RFRA. The court stated, "no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp. 25–26|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Responding to lower court judges' suggestion that the purpose of for-profit corporations "is simply to make money," the court said, "For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp. 28–29|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court rejected the contention that "the Nation lacks a tradition of exempting for-profit corporations from generally applicable laws," pointing to a federal statute from 1993 that exempted any covered health care entity from engaging in "certain activities related to abortion".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 34|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The court held that the HHS [[Birth control|contraception]] mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion, rejecting an argument that the $2,000-per-employee penalty for dropping insurance coverage is less than the average cost of health insurance. Responding to HHS's argument that the provision of coverage does not itself result in destruction of embryos, the Court asserted that the argument dodges the substantial burden question that the Court is supposed to address. The Court added, citing Jesuit moral manuals, that the argument is also the religious question of the morality of enabling the immoral acts of others, to which HHS had provided "a binding national answer". The Court argued that federal courts should not answer religious questions because they would in effect be deciding whether certain beliefs are flawed.<ref>134 S. Ct. 2751, 2778 fn.34 (citing [[David S. Oderberg]], [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6248324&fileId=S1358246100008511|The Ethics of Co-operation in Wrongdoing, in Modern Moral Philosophy 203-228 (A. O'Hear ed. 2004)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220704060725/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/royal-institute-of-philosophy-supplements/article/abs/ethics-of-cooperation-in-wrongdoing/594392A5F879E604A8549FB80F9E4F44 |date=2022-07-04 }}; Thomas Higgins S.J., [https://archive.org/details/manasmansciencea00higg Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics 353, 355 (1949)]; 1 Henry Davis S.J., [http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/Manuel%20excerpt.pdf Moral and Pastoral Theology 341 (1935).] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123905/http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/Manuel%20excerpt.pdf |date=2015-04-02 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Griffin|first1=Leslie C.|title=Catholic Moral Theology at the Supreme Court|url=http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/catholic-moral-theology-supreme-court|access-date=24 March 2015|work=America The National Catholic Review|date=July 2, 2014|archive-date=2 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402090347/http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/catholic-moral-theology-supreme-court|url-status=live}}</ref>  The court argued that "companies would face a competitive disadvantage in retaining and attracting skilled workers," that increased wages for employees to buy individual coverage would be more costly than group health insurance, that any raise in wages would have to take income taxes into account, and that employers cannot deduct the penalty.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,'' pp. 39–40|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on whether the HHS contraceptive mandate furthers a compelling government interest and held that HHS has not shown that the mandate is "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 46|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court argued that the most straightforward alternative would be "for the Government to assume the cost&nbsp;..." and that HHS has not shown that it is not "a viable alternative".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,'' p. 47|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court said that the RFRA can "require creation of entirely new programs".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 48|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court also pointed out that HHS already exempts any nonprofit organization from paying for any required contraception by allowing it to certify its religious objection to its insurance issuer, which must "[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,'' pp. 15–16, 49|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> However, the court said the approach might not necessarily be the least restrictive alternative for all religious claims.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 50|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The court concluded by addressing "the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction". The court said that their decision "provides no such shield", and that "prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 52|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court also said that the requirement to pay taxes despite any religious objection is different from the contraceptive mandate because "there simply is no less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'',. pp. 52–53|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> The court acknowledged the dissent's "worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws&nbsp;...", noting that this point was "made forcefully by the Court in ''Smith.''" The court responded by saying, "Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that 'the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests'&nbsp;... The wisdom of Congress's judgment on this matter is not our concern. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 54|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-07-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709094145/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>