Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Notable Items:

The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, see City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532, and it is not satisfied here.

Petitioner:
Respondent:
Venue: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion of the Court: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., permit the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

Petitioner's Claim(s):

The Hahns ... seeking to enjoin application of ACA’s contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA-approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg.

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: No. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.
Disposition: The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed;
the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Material Facts:

ACA generally requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer“a group health plan or group health insurance coverage” that provides “minimum essential coverage.”
Conestoga Wood Specialties, closely held, for-profit corporation [owned and operated by the Hahn family.]
The Hahns believe that they are required to run their business “in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral principles.”
The Hahns have accordingly excluded from the group-health-insurance plan they offer to their employees certain contraceptive methods that they consider to be abortifacients.
The Hahns and Conestoga sued HHS and other federal officials ....
[The Greens] ... Hobby Lobby is organized as a [closely held] for-profit corporation....
[The Greens] ... Mardel is also organized as a [closely held] for-profit corporation....
[The Greens] specifically object to the same four contraceptive methods as the Hahns and, like the Hahns, they have no objection to the other 16 FDA-approved methods of birth control.
The Greens, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel sued HHS and other federal agencies ....

Procedural History:

The District Court denied a preliminary injunction ...
[Hahns] ... the Third Circuit affirmed ... holding that “for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise” within the meaning of RFRA or the First Amendment.
[Hahns] ... it concluded that the HHS “[m]andate does not impose any requirements on the Hahns” in their personal capacity.
[Greens] ... denied a preliminary injunction ...
[Greens] ... The Tenth Circuit granted that motion and reversed ...
Contrary to the conclusion of the Third Circuit, the Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law.
The [Tenth Circuit] court next held that HHS had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against the Greens’ businesses and, in the alternative, that HHS had failed to prove that enforcement of the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering the Government’s asserted interests.
We granted certiorari. 571 U. S. ___ (2013).

Rationale

Alito Majority Opinion (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas)

... under RFRA a person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person[:]
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
ACA generally requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer“a group health plan or group health insurance coverage” that provides “minimum essential coverage.”
The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, see City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532, and it is not satisfied here.
... the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies ....
A full description of the rationale is available below

Kennedy Concurrance (??)

In these cases the plaintiffs deem it necessary to exercise their religious beliefs within the context of their own closely held, for-profit corporations.
The accommodation works by requiring insurance companies to cover, without cost sharing, contraception coverage for female employees who wish it.
That accommodation equally furthers the Government’s interest but does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.
... the Government has not met its burden of showing that it cannot accommodate the plaintiffs’ similar religious objections under this established framework.
RFRA requires the Government to use this less restrictive means.

Ginsburg Dissent (Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan)

[Section IV]
[in Lee] two key points one cannot confine to tax cases[:]
“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice,"....
... “the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” Id., at 261.
Further, the Court recognized in Lee that allowing a religion-based exemption to a commercial employer would “operat[e] to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.” Ibid.
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises 390 U. S. 400 (1968) [refused to serve black patrons]
In re Minnesota ex rel. McClure 478 U. S. 1015 (1986) [proscribed hiring or retaining an “individua[l] living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex,” and others]
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock cert. denied, 572 U. S. ___ (2014) [refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony]
There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment),
I would confine religious exemptions under that Act (RFRA) to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.”

Breyer Dissent (Kagan)

We agree with Justice Ginsburg that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits.
We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Accordingly, we join all but Part III–C–1 of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion.

Majority Full Argument

[Section I: Legislative History]
... RFRA provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” §2000bb–1(a).
... under the Act that person is entitled to an exemption from the rule unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person[:]
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” §2000bb–1(b)
At issue in these cases are HHS regulations promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)
ACA generally requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer “a group health plan or group health insurance coverage” that provides “minimum essential coverage.”
Unless an exception applies, ACA requires an employer’s group health plan or group-health-insurance coverage to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements.”
... nonexempt employers are generally required to provide “coverage, without cost sharing” for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.”
HHS also authorized the HRSA to establish exemptions from the contraceptive mandate for “religious employers.”
[Section II: See Full Recounting of Facts]
[Section III: "a person’s exercise of religion ... whether this provision applies to regulations that govern the activities of for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel."]
[Section IV: "whether the HHS contraceptive mandate “substantially burden[s]” the exercise of religion." ]
[Section V: ]
...we must ... and decide whether HHS has shown that the mandate both “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(b).
[Section V A]
RFRA ... requires ... [we] look to the marginal interest in enforcing the contraceptive mandate in these cases.
We will assume that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA....
[Section V B]
The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, see City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532, and it is not satisfied here.
... the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies ....
HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections.
... the organization can self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.
the organization’s insurance issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan”
and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” without imposing “any cost-sharing requirements ... on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.”
[Section V C]
... our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.
HHS analogizes the contraceptive mandate to the requirement to pay Social Security taxes, which we upheld in United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 257 (1982) despite the religious objection of an employer, ...
Lee turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation. [Factually wrong...dedicated funding.]
The dissent worries about forcing the federal courts to apply RFRA to a host of claims made by litigants seeking a religious exemption from generally applicable laws, and the dissent expresses a desire to keep the courts out of this business.
... dissent reiterates a point made forcefully by the Court in Smith. 494 U. S., at 888–889 (applying the Sherbert test to all free-exercise claims “would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”).
But Congress, in enacting RFRA, took the position that “the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test forstriking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb(a)(5).
... under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.
The core of the rationale is available above