Hobby Lobby

=== Opposition to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ===
{{main|Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.}}
David Green took a public stance against the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]],<ref name="bi_davidgreen">{{cite news|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/hobby-lobby-ceo-david-greens-obamacare-statement-2013-9|title=Hobby Lobby CEO: Here's Why Obamacare Is A Total Affront To My Religious Beliefs|first=David|last=Green|date=September 18, 2013|website=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=2020-04-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016174419/https://www.businessinsider.com/hobby-lobby-ceo-david-greens-obamacare-statement-2013-9|archive-date=2015-10-16|url-status=live}}</ref> citing its mandating that companies provide access to [[Contraceptive mandate|contraception]] and the [[morning-after pill]].<ref>{{Cite book|last=Graber|first=Mark|url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3629100080/GVRL?u=epfl&sid=GVRL&xid=25fd7bcd|title=American Governance|publisher=Gale|year=2016|isbn=9780028662558|location=Farmington Hills, MI|pages=178}}</ref>  In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a [[Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby|lawsuit]] against the United States over new regulations requiring health insurance provided by employers to cover emergency contraceptives.

Hobby Lobby released the following statement: "[T]he Green family's religious beliefs forbid them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A302305930/ITOF?u=baltctycpl&sid=ITOF&xid=fd1b098c.|title=Retailer, family sue over contraception|date=September 13, 2012|work=UPI Newstrack|access-date=April 12, 2020}}</ref>  Hobby Lobby argued that the Free Exercise Clause of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] and the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act]] serve to protect their religious beliefs, and accordingly bars the application of the contraceptive mandate to them.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Scudder|first=Mark D. |author2=Barnes & Thornburg LLP |title=It's Official – The Supreme Court Announces That It Will Review The Contraceptive Mandate|journal=The National Law Review|date=November 28, 2013|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/it-s-official-supreme-court-announces-it-will-review-contraceptive-mandate|access-date=December 11, 2013}}</ref>

The [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] rejected the company's application for an injunction, prompting the firm to sue the federal government.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/26/supreme-court-denies-hobby-lobby-request-for-reprieve-from-health-care-mandate/|title=Supreme Court denies Hobby Lobby request for reprieve from health care mandate|date=2012-12-26|work=Fox News|access-date=2013-10-08|publisher=Fox News}}</ref> On July 19, 2013, US District Judge [[Joe Heaton]] granted the company a temporary exemption from the contraceptive-providing mandate.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hobbylobby-contraception-idUSBRE96I0SW20130719|title=Hobby Lobby wins a stay against birth control mandate|last=Stempel|first=Jonathan|date=July 19, 2013|work=Reuters|access-date=2013-10-08|publisher=Reuters.com}}</ref> On January 28, 2014, the [[Center for Inquiry]] filed an [[amicus brief]] with the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/cfi_tells_supreme_court_hobby_lobby/|title=Press release – Amicus brief to Supreme Court|date=January 28, 2014|website=Center For Inquiry|access-date=February 6, 2014}}</ref> They argued that were the court to grant Hobby Lobby an exclusion, the firm would violate the [[Establishment Clause]], along with part of the First Amendment. Oral arguments in the case, then known as ''[[Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby]],'' were heard on March 25, 2014.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|website=SupremeCourt.gov|title=Oral Arguments: Argument transcripts|access-date=2017-06-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326024552/http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|archive-date=2014-03-26|url-status=dead}}</ref>  On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" stock corporations can choose to be exempt from the law based on religious preferences, based on the [[Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993]] but not on the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-exempts-some-companies-from-health-care-law-on-religious-grounds-1404138333?mod=djemalertNEWS|work=The Wall Street Journal|title=Supreme Court Exempts Some Companies From Health Care Law On Religious Grounds |pages= A1, A6 |date=July 1, 2014 |last=Bravin|first=Jess}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|website=Reason.com|url=http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/30/supreme-court-rules-against-obamacares-c|date=June 30, 2014|title=Supreme Court Rules Against Obamacare}}</ref> 

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 Schenck 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 Schenck and his wife had a dinner party with Justice [[Samuel Alito]] and his wife. At the time, Schenck used that information to inform Hobby Lobby and other religious organizations to prepare for the formal announcement of the decision. Schenck 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.]]'', 573 U.S. 682 (2014).<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>