Title: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - Wikipedia
Headings: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents
Background
Federal law
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Affordable Care Act
Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties
Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs
Lower court history
U.S. Supreme Court consideration
Acceptance and briefs
Argument and deliberation
Opinion of the Court
Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Dissenting opinions
Reactions
Organizations
Government
Aftermath
Cases following SCOTUS ruling
Wheaton College order
Implications
Religious exemption from laws that apply to the general public
Imposition of religious beliefs onto others
Corporate liability
See also
Notes and references
Further reading
External links

Content: Contents
1 Background
1.1 Federal law
1.1.1 Religious Freedom Restoration Act
1.1.2 Affordable Care Act
1.2 Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties
1.2.1 Specific contraceptives contested by plaintiffs
1.3 Lower court history
2 U.S. Supreme Court consideration
2.1 Acceptance and briefs
2.2 Argument and deliberation
3 Opinion of the Court
3.1 Majority opinion
3.2 Concurring opinion
3.3 Dissenting opinions
4 Reactions
4.1 Organizations
4.2 Government
5 Aftermath
5.1 Cases following SCOTUS ruling
5.2 Wheaton College order
6 Implications
6.1 Religious exemption from laws that apply to the general public
6.2 Imposition of religious beliefs onto others
6.3 Corporate liability
7 See also
8 Notes and references
9 Further reading
10 External links
Background
Federal law
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability even as an expression of religious belief. " To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, citing the 1878 Reynolds v. United States decision, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. " He wrote that generally applicable laws do not have to meet the standard of strict scrutiny, because such a requirement would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws". Strict scrutiny would require a law to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. In 1993, the US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden [s] a person's exercise of religion". The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to redefine exercise of religion as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita in 2006. Affordable Care Act
Of those Americans who have health insurance, most are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which relies on the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to specify what kinds of preventive care for women should be covered in certain employer-based health plans. HHS exempted religious employers (churches and their integrated auxiliaries, associations of churches, and any religious order), non-profit organizations that object to any required contraception, employers providing grandfathered plans (that have not had specific changes before March 23, 2010), and employers with fewer than 50 employees.