Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

== U.S. Supreme Court consideration ==

=== Acceptance and briefs ===
On November 26, the Supreme Court accepted and consolidated the case with ''Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius.'' Two dozen amicus briefs support the government, and five dozen support the companies. [[American Freedom Law Center]]'s brief argues that birth control harms women because men will only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires."<ref>{{cite news|last=Marcotte|first=Amanda|title=Your Health Care, Your Choices (Amen, to That!)|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/your-health-care-your-choices-amen-to-that.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=The Daily Beast|date=March 24, 2014|archive-date=March 26, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326104349/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/24/your-health-care-your-choices-amen-to-that.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Another brief argues that the contraception rule leads to "the maximization of sexual activity".<ref name=LATimes>{{cite news|last=Abcarian|first=Robin|title=Religion run amok? Hobby Lobby's case comes to the Supreme Court|url=http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-religion-case-run-amok-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-20140321,0,2434477.story#axzz2xCDkXOYk|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=March 21, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181123200316/https://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-religion-case-run-amok-hobby-lobby-supreme-court-20140321-story.html|archive-date=November 23, 2018}}</ref> Two of the briefs oppose each other on the constitutionality of the RFRA. Two briefs that do not formally take sides oppose each other on whether the right to religion applies to corporations.<ref>{{cite news|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|title=Argument preview: Religion, rights, and the workplace|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-preview-religion-rights-and-the-workplace/|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=SCOTUSblog|date=March 20, 2014|archive-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325184312/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-preview-religion-rights-and-the-workplace/|url-status=live}}</ref> One of those briefs argues that if shareholders are separated by the [[corporate veil]] from corporate liabilities, then their religious values are also separate from the corporation. It mentions the ruling in ''[[Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald]]'' made against the [[African American]] owner of JWM Investments whose contracts were breached due to racial discrimination. The brief argues that if JWM Investments could not suffer discrimination through its owner, then Hobby Lobby could not suffer religious burden through its owner.<ref>{{cite news|last=Beutler|first=Brian|title=Right-wing judges face huge moral dilemma: How Hobby Lobby could expose SCOTUS' hypocrisy|url=http://www.salon.com/2014/03/24/right_wing_judges_face_huge_moral_dilemma_how_hobby_lobby_could_expose_scotus_hypocrisy/|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=Salon|date=March 24, 2014|archive-date=March 27, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140327022143/http://www.salon.com/2014/03/24/right_wing_judges_face_huge_moral_dilemma_how_hobby_lobby_could_expose_scotus_hypocrisy/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Amicus Curiae Brief of Corporate and Criminal Law Professors in Support of Petitioners|url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-354-13-356_amcu_cclp.authcheckdam.pdf|work=americanbar.org|publisher=American Bar Association|access-date=March 27, 2014|archive-date=March 28, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328125311/http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-354-13-356_amcu_cclp.authcheckdam.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Two briefs were filed by LGBT groups concerned that future anti-discrimination laws would be pre-emptively harmed if employers could claim to be religiously exempt.<ref>{{cite news|last=Goodwin|first=Liz|title=Why gay rights groups care about a Supreme Court birth control case|url=https://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-rights-groups-care-about-a-supreme-court-birth-control-case-211337519.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=Yahoo News|date=March 5, 2014|archive-date=March 10, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140310225815/http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-rights-groups-care-about-a-supreme-court-birth-control-case-211337519.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Winkler|first=Adam|title=Will the Supreme Court License Anti-Gay Discrimination?|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/will-the-supreme-court-li_b_5020848.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=March 24, 2014|archive-date=March 27, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140327154143/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/will-the-supreme-court-li_b_5020848.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Bassett|first=Laura|title=Hobby Lobby Win At Supreme Court Could Lead To More Anti-Gay Laws|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court_n_4891606.html|access-date=March 27, 2014|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=March 3, 2014|archive-date=March 26, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326112818/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court_n_4891606.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Argument and deliberation ===
Oral arguments were held on March 25, 2014, for 30 minutes more than the usual one hour.<ref name=NYTimes/>
The three women in the court focused their questioning on Hobby Lobby's lawyer, [[Paul Clement]], while the men focused on the administration's lawyer, Solicitor General [[Donald B. Verrilli Jr.]]<ref>{{cite news|last=Condon|first=Stephanie|title=Hobby Lobby case fires up women, conservatives on Supreme Court|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hobby-lobby-case-fires-up-women-conservatives-on-supreme-court/|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=CBS News|date=March 25, 2014|archive-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140325225446/http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hobby-lobby-case-fires-up-women-conservatives-on-supreme-court/|url-status=live}}</ref> Justice Sotomayor quoted the ruling from [[United States v. Lee (1982)|''United States v. Lee'' (1982)]] saying that an employer can't deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. Clement replied that ''Lee'' does not apply because it was a challenge against a tax rather than against a significant burden. Sotomayor said that instead of paying the burden of the penalty, Hobby Lobby could replace its health care with the equivalent expense of higher wages and a calibrated tax, which the government would use to pay for the employees' health care.<ref name=Proceedings>{{cite web|title=Proceedings|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|work=supremecourt.gov|access-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326024552/http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf|archive-date=March 26, 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Feldman|first=Noah|title=Feldman: Hobby Lobby verdict may be a surprise|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57738599-82/religious-hobby-lobby-court.html.csp|access-date=March 28, 2014|newspaper=The Salt Lake Tribune|date=March 27, 2014|archive-date=March 29, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329080724/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57738599-82/religious-hobby-lobby-court.html.csp|url-status=live}}</ref> Near the end of Clement's argument, Justice Kennedy expressed concern for the rights of the employees who may not agree with the religious beliefs of their employers.<ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Struggles In Hobby Lobby Case With Question Of Companies' Religious Rights|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5027527.html|access-date=March 25, 2014|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=March 25, 2014|author=Ryan J. Reilly|author2=Laura Bassett|archive-date=March 26, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326011941/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5027527.html|url-status=live}}</ref> When Verrilli argued that the ruling in ''[[Cutter v. Wilkinson]]'' requires the court to weigh the impact on third parties in every RFRA case, Justice Scalia said that the RFRA does not require the court to balance the interest of the religious objector to the interest of other individuals. Verilli returned to ''Lee,'' saying that granting an exemption to an employer should not impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.<ref name=Proceedings/><ref>{{cite web|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|title=Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-recap-one-hearing-two-dramas/|work=SCOTUSblog|access-date=March 25, 2014|date=2014-03-25|archive-date=2014-03-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326032506/http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/argument-recap-one-hearing-two-dramas/|url-status=live}}</ref>