Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

=== Dissenting opinions ===
[[File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg official SCOTUS portrait.jpg|thumb|left|185px| Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] wrote a stern dissent disagreeing with the Court's reasoning.]]
Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] delivered the primary dissent, which was joined by Justice Sotomayor in full and by Justices Breyer and Kagan as to all but Part III–C–1<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 60|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> on "whether a corporation qualifies as a 'person' capable of exercising religion".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp 72–73|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> Ginsburg began, "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.&nbsp;... Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a 'less restrictive alternative.' And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government, i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp. 60–61|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>

She challenged the majority's unprecedented view of for-profit religion saying "Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities...<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 73|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>  Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', p. 75|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 the majority's argument that the government should "assume the cost" of contraceptives, Ginsburg said that "the nation's only dedicated source of federal funding for safety net family planning services&nbsp;..." is not designed to absorb the unmet needs of those already insured. She noted that "a less restrictive alternative" has not been written into law by Congress.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp. 87–88|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> Ginsburg warns, "The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield&nbsp;..."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf|title=''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores'', pp. 93–94|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>

Justices Breyer and Kagan wrote a one-paragraph dissenting opinion, saying that "the plaintiffs' challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits" and that they "need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/scotusblog-reports-closely-held-corporations-cannot-be-required-to-provide-contraception-coverage/ |title=Hobby Lobby wins before the Supreme Court |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=June 30, 2014 |access-date=August 25, 2017 |archive-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170627185741/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/scotusblog-reports-closely-held-corporations-cannot-be-required-to-provide-contraception-coverage/ |url-status=live }}</ref>