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: 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. 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".