Title: BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Headings: BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.
BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.
Syllabus
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
Notes
Opinion
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
I
A
B
II
A
B
III
A
B
1
2
3
4
IV
A
B
C
V
A
B
C
*  *  *
Notes
Concurrence
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
Dissent
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit
I
A
B
II
III
A
B
C
1
2
3
4
IV
*  *  *
Notes
Dissent
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit

Content: 2000cc–5 (7) (A). At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13 (a) (4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Admin istration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries. In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.