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: HHS's contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion under the RFRA. The Court assumes that guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority
Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Concurrence
Kennedy
Dissent
Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; Breyer, Kagan (all but part III-C-1)
Dissent
Breyer and Kagan
Laws applied
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
U.S. Const Amend. I
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to closely held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5–4 vote. The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control. The ruling is considered to be part of the political controversy regarding the Affordable Care Act in the United States.