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.
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:

Procedural History:


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

Kennedy Concurrance (??)

Ginsburg Dissent (Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan)

Breyer Dissent (Kagan)

Majority Full Argument