Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

==Aftermath==

===Cases following SCOTUS ruling===
''[[Forbes]]'' reported that following the ruling in ''Burwell v. Hobby Lobby'', "the Supreme Court vacated the judgment against [[Eden Foods]] and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/07/03/hobby-lobby-fallout-catholic-soy-milk-mogul-wont-cover-drugs-that-prevent-procreation/|title=Hobby Lobby Fallout: Catholic Soy Milk Mogul Won't Cover Drugs That 'Prevent Procreation'|last=O'Connor|first=Clare|date=3 July 2014|work=[[Forbes]]|access-date=13 July 2014|archive-date=14 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133501/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>

On November 6, 2015, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] decided it will hear arguments for the case of ''[[Zubik v. Burwell]]'' combined with six other challenges—including ''[[Priests for Life]] v. Burwell'', ''[[Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell]]'', ''[[Geneva College v. Burwell]]'',
''[[Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell]]'', ''[[East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell]]'', ''[[Little Sisters of the Poor]] Home for the Aged v. Burwell''—to the [[contraceptive mandate]] of Obamacare.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/9429815-court-grants-all-seven-nonprofit-petitions-in-contraceptive-coverage-cas|title=Jack Balkin's Blog - Court grants all seven nonprofit petitions in contraceptive coverage cases, henceforth to be collectively referred to as &quot;Zubik v. Burwell&quot; [UPDATED to include briefing schedule] - November 18, 2015 05:40|website=Goodreads.com|access-date=July 4, 2019|archive-date=August 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811164512/https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/9429815-court-grants-all-seven-nonprofit-petitions-in-contraceptive-coverage-cas|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-burwell-and-why.html|title=Balkinization: Who is the "Zubik" in Zubik v. Burwell . . . and why is he allegedly complicit in the use of contraception? [UPDATED with list and categorization of all 37 petitioners]|website=balkin.blogspot.com|access-date=2019-07-04|archive-date=2019-07-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704192519/https://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/11/who-is-zubik-in-zubik-v-burwell-and-why.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/court-to-hear-birth-control-challenges/|title=Court to hear birth-control challenges (UPDATED)|date=November 6, 2015|website=SCOTUSblog|access-date=July 4, 2019|archive-date=July 4, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704192526/https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/11/court-to-hear-birth-control-challenges/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/11/scotus-will-hear-all-the-obamacare-contraception-exemption-cases.html|title=SCOTUS Will Hear All the Obamacare Contraception Exemption Cases|website=Findlaw|date=6 November 2015|access-date=27 June 2018|archive-date=22 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180922120638/https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2015/11/scotus-will-hear-all-the-obamacare-contraception-exemption-cases.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zubik-v-burwell/|title=Zubik v. Burwell|website=SCOTUSblog|access-date=2019-07-04|archive-date=2019-07-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704192526/https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zubik-v-burwell/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1418.htm/|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184332/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F14-1418.htm%2F|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1453.htm|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184332/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F14-1453.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-110.htm|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184332/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F15-110.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-1505.htm|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184332/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F14-1505.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-101.htm|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184332/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F15-101.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-105.htm|title=Search - Supreme Court of the United States|website=Supremecourt.gov|access-date=2022-07-04|archive-date=2022-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220520184333/https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=%2Fdocketfiles%2F15-105.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Wheaton College order===
On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to the approach it suggested as a less restrictive alternative in ''Hobby Lobby,'' where the plaintiffs would send a form ([[EBSA Form 700]])<ref name=form700>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.doc|title=EBSA Form 700: Certification for Safe Harbor Exemption from Contraceptive Coverage Mandate|access-date=2014-07-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722040927/http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.doc|archive-date=2014-07-22|url-status=dead}}</ref> to its insurance issuer, which would pay for the contraception. In an unsigned emergency injunction for [[Wheaton College (Illinois)|Wheaton College]] in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying its insurance issuer, Wheaton can notify the government. Once notified, the government should notify the issuer. Wheaton believed that by transferring the obligation to cover contraceptives to its insurance issuer, it was triggering that obligation. The emergency injunction does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Wheaton's religious objection. The court said "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives."<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf Order in Pending Case, Wheaton College v. Bruwell, On Application for Injunction] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625143448/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf |date=2017-06-25 }}, July 3, 2014</ref>

In a 15-page dissent joined by the other two women on the court, Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] criticized the majority's reasoning: "Wheaton's application comes nowhere near the high bar necessary to warrant an emergency injunction from this court&nbsp;... The court's actions in this case create unnecessary costs and layers of bureaucracy, and they ignore a simple truth: The government must be allowed to handle the basic tasks of public administration in a manner that comports with common sense."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Liptak|first1=Adam|title=Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=The New York Times|date=Jul 3, 2014|archive-date=July 4, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140704020348/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/supreme-court-order-suspends-contraception-rule-for-christian-college.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor granted a similar temporary injunction to the [[Little Sisters of the Poor]] at the end of 2013, just before the mandate was to go into effect.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Bazelon|first1=Emily|title=Did Little Sisters of the Poor Win or Lose at the Supreme Court?|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/little_sisters_of_the_poor_case_supreme_court_grants_a_temporary_reprieve.single.html|access-date=Jul 6, 2014|work=Slate|date=Jan 24, 2014|archive-date=July 14, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714142713/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/01/little_sisters_of_the_poor_case_supreme_court_grants_a_temporary_reprieve.single.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012414zr_6jgm.pdf|title=Supreme Court order|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-date=2017-03-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170318154816/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012414zr_6jgm.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf|title=order from Sotomayor|access-date=2014-07-06|archive-date=2014-02-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140211034417/http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/13A691-Little-Sisters-v-Sebelius-Order.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

In dueling commentaries between regular [[SCOTUSblog]] contributor [[Marty Lederman]] and co-founder [[Tom Goldstein]], Lederman argued that only Form 700 can require an insurance provider to pay for contraception coverage. Goldstein argued that an existing regulation allows the government to specify an alternative to Form 700. He pointed out that "the Court didn't accept Wheaton's most aggressive argument" that it cannot be required to do anything. He said that Justice Kennedy's concurrence is controlling and makes clear that the RFRA is not violated by requiring Wheaton to notify the government.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Goldstein|first1=Tom|title=Commentary: Why I don't think the Court's Wheaton College decision rests on any misunderstanding of the law|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|access-date=Jul 15, 2014|work=SCOTUSblog|date=Jul 4, 2014 <!-- 11:53 AM -->|archive-date=July 16, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140716125720/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-why-i-dont-think-the-courts-wheaton-college-decision-rests-on-any-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Lederman|first1=Marty|title=Commentary: Is the Court's attempt at a compromise order in Wheaton College based upon a misunderstanding of the law?|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-is-the-courts-attempt-at-a-compromise-order-in-wheaton-college-based-upon-a-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|access-date=Jul 15, 2014|work=SCOTUSblog|date=Jul 4, 2014 <!-- 11:52 AM -->|archive-date=July 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711151210/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/07/commentary-is-the-courts-attempt-at-a-compromise-order-in-wheaton-college-based-upon-a-misunderstanding-of-the-law/|url-status=live}}</ref>

A revised version of EBSA Form 700, effective August 2014, says "[a]s an alternative to using this form, an eligible organization may provide notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the eligible organization has a religious objection to providing coverage for all or a subset of contraceptive services&nbsp;...".<ref name=form700/>

===Possible leak===
In November 2022, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported on a possible leak of the ''Hobby Lobby'' decision about two weeks prior to its formal announcement; this story was published following the leak and decision of ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' in June 2022 which overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' on abortion rights. Reverend Rob Schneck wrote to both Chief Justice John Roberts and to the ''Times'' stating that he had been told of which way ''Hobby Lobby'' was to be decided though a close associate after Schneck and his wife had a dinner party with Alito and his wife. At the time, Schneck used that information to inform Hobby Lobby and other religious organizations to prepare for the formal announcement of the decision. Schneck had opted to reveal this information in 2022 to aid in the investigation of the ''Dobbs'' decision leak.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/us/supreme-court-leak-abortion-roe-wade.html | title =   Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach | first1 = Jodi | last1 = Kantor | first2 = Jo | last2=  Becker | date = November 19, 2022 | accessdate = November 19, 2022 | work = [[The New York Times]] }}</ref> In 2011 through their connection to the Historical Society, [[Hobby Lobby]]'s owners attended a Christmas party in Supreme Court chambers shortly before litigation was initiated which became Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lithwick |first1=Dahlia |title=The Real Problem With the Second Alleged Leak at the Court |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/alito-leak-hobby-lobby-real-problem.html |access-date=27 November 2022 |publisher=Slate |date=22 November 2022}}</ref>