Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

== Implications ==
{{Multiple issues|section=yes|
{{POV section|date=October 2014}}
{{Undue weight section|date=October 2014}}
}}

===Religious exemption from laws that apply to the general public===
Although the court stated clearly that the decision is limited to the contraceptive mandate (Syllabus p.&nbsp;4-5), the ruling is seen to have consequences extending far beyond contraception. [[Walter Dellinger]], former acting solicitor general said, "for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else." Fifteen states had filed a brief arguing that businesses would be able to deny coverage for transfusions, stem cell treatments, and psychiatric care.<ref name=Reach>{{cite news|last=Liptak|first=Adam|title=Ruling Could Have Reach Beyond Issue of Contraception|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/contraception-ruling-could-have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 24, 2014|archive-date=March 29, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329123556/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/contraception-ruling-could-have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0|url-status=live}}</ref> In line with the dissenting opinion, ''[[The American Prospect]]'' asked, "[W]ill the taxpayers have to send a check to employees if employers feel that [[minimum wage]] laws violate their religious beliefs?"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Lemieux|first1=Scott|title=5 Men on Supreme Court Impose Substantial Burden on Women in Illogical Decision|url=http://prospect.org/article/5-men-supreme-court-impose-substantial-burden-women-illogical-decision|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=The American Prospect|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 7, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140707024039/http://prospect.org/article/5-men-supreme-court-impose-substantial-burden-women-illogical-decision|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Jonathan Rauch]], a senior fellow at the [[Brookings Institution]], said that objections to paying health benefits for same-sex spouses will get traction.<ref name=Cohen/> The [[National Gay and Lesbian Task Force]] (NGLT) and the [[National Center for Lesbian Rights]] withdrew their support for the [[Employment Non-Discrimination Act]] (ENDA) passed by the Senate, saying that its religious exemptions would allow companies to fire or refuse to hire LGBT workers in light of the ''Hobby Lobby'' ruling. NGLT executive director [[Rea Carey]] said, "We do not take this move lightly. We've been pushing for this bill for 20 years."<ref>{{cite news|last1=O'Keefe|first1=Ed|title=Gay rights group withdrawing support of ENDA after Hobby Lobby decision|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/08/gay-rights-group-withdrawing-support-of-enda-after-hobby-lobby-decision/|access-date=Jul 8, 2014|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=Jul 8, 2014|archive-date=July 8, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708184210/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/08/gay-rights-group-withdrawing-support-of-enda-after-hobby-lobby-decision/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Such concerns are focused on the court's application of the federal RFRA law and were driven by national controversy over a [[State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts|state RFRA]] amendment bill in Arizona. Douglas Laycock, law professor at the University of Virginia, said, "The whole secular left has decided" that RFRA laws "are very dangerous because they care so much more about the contraception cases and gay rights." He said RFRA laws are mischaracterized because they do not dictate outcomes favoring religious objectors, they only require courts to use the highest standard of scrutiny on any law challenged.<ref name=Reach/> Mark Kernes, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Analyst for [[AVN magazine]] stated in an [[op-ed]] piece, "If the Hobby Lobby decision supports the 'right' of companies not to make available birth control that will prevent women from 'catching' a pregnancy, what's to keep those same religious companies from arguing that providing access to [[pre-exposure prophylaxis|PrEP]] drugs like [[Truvada]], which help prevent gays (and, admittedly, everyone) from catching [[HIV]] shouldn't similarly be excluded from their health plans?"<ref name=2014AVNTruvada>{{cite web|last1=Kernes|first1=Mark|title=Will the Hobby Lobby Decision Impact the Availability of Truvada?|url=http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Will-the-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-Impact-the-Availability-of-Truvada-565669.html|website=AVN.com|publisher=Adult Video News|access-date=3 July 2014|archive-date=8 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140708204149/http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Will-the-Hobby-Lobby-Decision-Impact-the-Availability-of-Truvada-565669.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2021, Senator Cory Booker introduced a bill called the Do No Harm Act to reverse Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-09-15 |title=Booker reintroduces bill reversing Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision |url=https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/booker-reintroduces-bill-reversing-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision/ |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=New Jersey Globe |language=en-US |archive-date=2021-09-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916113432/https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/booker-reintroduces-bill-reversing-supreme-courts-hobby-lobby-decision/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

As of April 2022, there is an expectation that "Hobby Lobby 2.0" is forthcoming should President Biden pass changes to Obamacare regarding extensions for protections for trans people and the interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-21 |title='Hobby Lobby 2.0': Two Biden rules on trans care raise religious liberty fears |url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/hobby-lobby-2-0-two-biden-rules-on-trans-care-raise-religious-liberty-fears |access-date=2022-04-26 |website=Restoring America |language=en |archive-date=2022-04-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220426030827/https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/hobby-lobby-2-0-two-biden-rules-on-trans-care-raise-religious-liberty-fears |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Imposition of religious beliefs onto others===
Ian Millhiser from [[Vox (website)|Vox.com]] argued that as a general rule in religious liberty cases prior to the Hobby Lobby decision religion can't be used to diminish the rights of others. He pointed to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case ''[[United States v. Lee (1982)]]'' (1982) in which the Court declared "when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."<ref name="20191226Vox.comMillhiser" /> According to Millhiser the Hobby Lobby decision marks the first time "rights of religious believers could trump the rights of others."<ref name="20191226Vox.comMillhiser">{{cite news |last1=Millhiser |first1=Ian |title=9 Supreme Court cases that shaped the 2010s |url=https://www.vox.com/2019/12/26/21024188/nine-supreme-court-citizens-united-obamacare-muslim-ban-religion |access-date=December 1, 2020 |publisher=[[Vox (website)|Vox.com]] |date=December 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124073316/https://www.vox.com/2019/12/26/21024188/nine-supreme-court-citizens-united-obamacare-muslim-ban-religion |archive-date=November 24, 2020}}</ref> Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the [[National Women's Law Center]], argued in the same direction Millhiser by saying that the Supreme Court has never ruled that companies have religious beliefs and that "it has never held that religious exercise provides a license to harm others, or violate the rights of third parties."

Louise Melling, ACLU deputy legal director, said religious freedom "gives us all the right to hold our beliefs, but it doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others, to discriminate against others."<ref name="LATimes" /> The editorial board of ''[[The New York Times]]'' wrote that the decision "swept aside accepted principles of corporate law and religious liberty to grant owners of closely held, for-profit companies an unprecedented right to impose their religious views on employees."<ref>{{cite news|author1=The Editorial Board|title=Limiting Rights: Imposing Religion on Workers|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/the-supreme-court-imposing-religion-on-workers.html|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=The New York Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140701182034/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/opinion/the-supreme-court-imposing-religion-on-workers.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A [[Fox News]] columnist wrote, "..., with all of the debate about the religious beliefs of the Hobby Lobby owners, what about the religious beliefs of their employees? They are just as important, and should not be trampled upon."<ref>{{cite news|last1=A. Reyes|first1=Raúl|title=Opinion: In Hobby Lobby Decision, What About The Beliefs Of The Employees?|url=http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/07/02/opinion-in-hobby-lobby-decision-what-about-religious-beliefs-employees/|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=Fox News Latino|date=Jul 2, 2014|archive-date=July 11, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711070049/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/opinion/2014/07/02/opinion-in-hobby-lobby-decision-what-about-religious-beliefs-employees/|url-status=live}}</ref> The director of the [[United Church of Christ]]'s Washington, D.C. office, said that the ruling "may embolden private employers to claim religious objections to particular health care services, in effect forcing their own religious views upon their employees."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Ehley|first1=Brianna|title=SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Ruling Chips Away At Obamacare|url=http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/30/SCOTUS-Hobby-Lobby-Ruling-Chips-Away-Obamacare|access-date=Jun 30, 2014|work=The Fiscal Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=July 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140715045527/http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/06/30/SCOTUS-Hobby-Lobby-Ruling-Chips-Away-Obamacare|url-status=live}}</ref> Former Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] said, "It's the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom, which means that the ... corporation's employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Reston|first1=Maeve|title=Hillary Rodham Clinton calls Hobby Lobby ruling a 'slippery slope'|url=http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80680462/|access-date=Jul 2, 2014|work=Los Angeles Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=October 6, 2012|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121006015957/http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80680462/|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Center for American Progress]] said that the ruling "moves in the direction this court has been moving already, which is talking about [[corporate personhood]]—really treating corporations like people, saying that the corporation has a religion itself and that should be imposed on its employees."<ref name="Cohen">{{cite news|last1=Cohen|first1=Tom|title=Hobby Lobby ruling much more than abortion|url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/scotus-hobby-lobby-impacts/|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=CNN|date=Jul 2, 2014|archive-date=July 6, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140706205021/http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/politics/scotus-hobby-lobby-impacts|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Interfaith Alliance]] leader Rev. [[Welton Gaddy]] said, "The First Amendment is at its best when it is used to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the powerful. Today's decision, which gives the powerful the right to force their religious beliefs on those around them, is a far cry from the best traditions of religious freedom."<ref name="Boorstein" />

Scholars on the other side (including some on the left){{citation needed|date=July 2017}} disagree, arguing that companies owned and run by liberals will likewise benefit from the freedom to operate according to their conscience or values—which has not been viewed as "imposing" views, because people routinely choose whom to associate with based on philosophical compatibility.<ref>{{cite news|title=A liberal's second thoughts about Hobby Lobby|first=Dale|last=Carpenter|date=July 12, 2014|website=Washingtonpost.com|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/12/a-liberals-second-thoughts-about-hobby-lobby/|access-date=August 25, 2017|archive-date=June 27, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170627041923/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/12/a-liberals-second-thoughts-about-hobby-lobby/|url-status=live}}</ref> Additionally, some argue that "religious freedom is worth more than $35," in reference to the $35 that is saved by coverage of the contraceptives and that the Affordable Care Act would not have passed if it were designed to mandate this coverage.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McCaughey |first=Betsy |date=2015-03-05 |title=Hobby Lobby case: Religious freedom's worth more than $35 |url=https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hobby-lobby-case-religious-freedoms-worth-more-than-35 |access-date=2023-11-07 |website=Fox News |language=en-US}}</ref> 

===Corporate liability===
''[[The New York Times]]'' editor Dorothy J. Samuels invoked the cautionary adage "be careful what you wish for", speculating that "if owners indicate that they are not entirely separate from their corporation—by denying corporation employees' birth control coverage based on their personal religious beliefs—the case could be made in future state-court litigation that they have waived their right to be shielded from responsibility for corporate financial liabilities."<ref name=Samuels>{{cite news|last1=J. Samuels|first1=Dorothy|title=Hobby Lobby, or When Corporations Get Things Both Ways|url=http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/hobby-lobby-or-when-corporations-get-things-both-ways/|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=The New York Times|date=Jul 2, 2014|archive-date=July 2, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702193156/http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/hobby-lobby-or-when-corporations-get-things-both-ways/|url-status=live}}</ref> The dean of the [[UC Irvine School of Law]], [[Erwin Chemerinsky]], said, "The liabilities of the corporation are not attributed to the owners, so why should the owners be able to attribute their beliefs to the company?"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Chemerinsky|first1=Erwin|title=The broad reach of the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling|url=http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80679909/|access-date=Jul 3, 2014|work=Los Angeles Times|date=Jun 30, 2014|archive-date=October 6, 2012|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121006015957/http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80679909/|url-status=live}}</ref> Several legal scholars wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court for this case arguing this danger, while scholars on the other side counter that incorporated non-profit organizations enjoy liability protection despite their activities based on religious or other values/conscience-based causes.<ref>{{cite web|title=Help me rebut the corporate law professors brief in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood mandate cases|first=Stephen|last=Bainbridge|date=January 30, 2014|url=http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2014/01/help-me-rebut-the-corporate-law-professors-belief-in-the-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-wood-mandate-case.html|access-date=July 16, 2014|archive-date=July 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140725081201/http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2014/01/help-me-rebut-the-corporate-law-professors-belief-in-the-hobby-lobby-and-conestoga-wood-mandate-case.html|url-status=live}}</ref>