Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Headline: Family-owned businesses can object to the ACA contraceptive coverage rule, Court blocks enforcement against closely held for-profit companies, easing owners’ ability to avoid covering certain contraceptives.
Holding:
- Allows family-owned companies to refuse certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds.
- Requires government or insurers to find alternatives to force coverage on objecting owners.
- May reduce immediate access to some contraceptives for employees at affected companies.
Summary
Background
In two separate lawsuits, families who run closely held businesses challenged a federal rule that requires employer health plans to pay for all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptives without cost sharing. The families (the Greens of Hobby Lobby and the Hahns of Conestoga and Mardel) say four methods at issue can act after fertilization and that covering them violates their sincere Christian beliefs. The rule already exempts churches and offers a paperwork-based accommodation for some religious nonprofit groups; the business owners sued to stop the rule as applied to their for-profit companies.
Reasoning
The Court first decided RFRA (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) applies to closely held, for-profit companies when those companies’ owners control the business. It then found the contraceptive rule forces the owners to choose between violating their beliefs or paying heavy penalties, which is a substantial burden. The majority assumed the Government’s interest in cost-free contraceptives is compelling but held the rule is not the least restrictive way to achieve that goal. The Court pointed to less restrictive alternatives, including the existing nonprofit accommodation or government-funded coverage for affected employees.
Real world impact
The decision shields certain family-run, for-profit companies from having to provide coverage for contraceptives that owners find religiously objectionable, making it easier for those owners to avoid funding those methods. Employees in affected companies may still receive coverage under the kinds of accommodations the Court described, but the outcome could vary as lower courts apply the ruling. The Court emphasized its holding is limited to the contraceptive mandate and closely held corporations, not all insurance requirements.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Ginsburg dissented, warning the ruling burdens women’s access to care and expands exemptions to commercial enterprises; Justice Kennedy wrote separately to stress a narrower scope.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?