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: In separate actions, they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives. In No. 13–356, the District Court denied the Hahns and their company—Conestoga Wood Specialties—a preliminary injunction. Affirming, the Third Circuit held that a for-profit corporation could not “engage in religious exercise” under RFRA or the First Amendment, and that the mandate imposed no requirements on the Hahns in their personal capacity. In No. 13–354, the Greens, their children, and their companies—Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel—were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Held : As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA.