Burwell V. Hobby Case Summary

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

“In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a five-Justice majority held that the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires of federal laws that burden religious exercise (Gedicks 1).” Burwell means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this case of Hobby Lobby versus Burwell, it is accused that the government has violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Hobby Lobby refused to provide insurance that covers birth control because it violates their religious beliefs. It is said that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, INC)” unless the government

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [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” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

Precedent says that religious values “must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sough after exemption would do to women seeking contraception”. She says that since “ for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial and the government has show a sufficiently compelling interest” and continues on to state that the contraception mandate does not violate the Religious freedoms and restoration act (RFRA). Justice Ginsburg believes that this is giving privilege that could potentially be abused because they are now exempt from things every other corporation who are not religiously affiliated has to provide. Couldn’t one company simply make their claims seem legit and sincere and be exempt from the same thing Hobby Lobby was exempt from? What is stopping other corporations even larger than from preventing their employees from attaining appropriate birth control? These actions unfortunately would cause an even larger amount of people to not be able to have contraception because of their employers. If employees have

The case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. [1985], challenges the constitutional question of the Lord’s Day Act and whether it infringed on the constitutional right to freedom of thought and freedom of religion. The Lord’s Day Act writes that selling goods on a Sunday would be seen as unlawful, it is used particularly to promote the observance of a day of worship. The Canadian Constitution in s. 52 states that no one can be convicted under an unconstitutional law, any accused (corporate of individual,) may defend a criminal charge by arguing the constitutional invalidity under the law in which the charge is brought. This is what Big M Drug Mart Ltd did to avoid criminal charges and to challenge the constitutional validity of the Lord’s Day Act.

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

I am Codell Craddock for the Respondent. My colleague, Fiona O’Brien has effectively demonstrated why the Hybrid Rights is merely dicta on the part of Justice Scalia and I will immediately follow by defining rational basis review. Rational Basis is the standard of review used by courts when reviewing matters pertaining to the fifth and fourteenth amendment. If a law proves to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, then it passes rational basis review. In addition, it is not the duty of the court to review the intent of the law, but merely to decide if their is a relationship between the law and a government interest.” This rationale was upheld in Swanson Swanson v. Gurthrie Independent school district when the supreme court ruled that the school district’s rule to require all students to attend public school full-time is a general law that tailors to a governmental interest. In our case, the candy ban was instituted to combat childhood obesity which is a governmental interest. Because as we saw in Barsky vs Board of Regents, the public health of a community is a vital part of a state’s police power. It is clear from this, that although the Candy Ban incidentally affects the practice of a religion, there is a clear relationship between the candy ban and public health, a legitimate government interest. Therefore, it passes the rational basis test.

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

In Hobby Lobby the Court reiterated its interpretation that a corporation has rights similar to that of an individual (Citizens United v. FEC), since corporations are composed of individuals, and thus are due the rights granted in the RFRA. The Court in Hobby Lobby found that providing contraception, and access to reproductive healthcare, serves the compelling state interest of public health and welfare. In parallel, this Court found that ensuring that people have coverage by health care providers is a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby correctly applied the test of strict scrutiny, and required that the mandate be the least restrictive means of advancing this compelling government interest. This is where the mandate failed as applied to Hobby Lobby. The Court found the mandate could not be applied to private corporations in order to require them to provide reproductive healthcare. In contrast, in the case at hand, the rule prohibiting multiple spouses as beneficiaries of a health insurance policy is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling government interest; that being the ability to provide the public with insurance in order to advance public health and welfare. Therefore, RFRA is not a basis upon which Mr. Bridges can claim his rights are violated if the insurance does not cover more than one wife. In conclusion, RFRA is not the basis for requiring health insurance to cover both Germanotta’s and Maraj 's claims.

Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Hobby Lobby recognized that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in deciding this religious freedom controversy bound them.

Option four describes adding a change to the law stating “no right to burden third parties.” The plaintiffs in the Hobby Lobby case denied their employees contraceptive health insurance, and this placed a burden on them. The amendment would state the plaintiffs can satisfy their religious beliefs if they provide another way for the employees to obtain the contraception without cost to the employees (Dorf, 2014).

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

This case challenged the rights of marital privacy within the home. In 1961, Griswold and her partner, Dr. Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. A law enacted in 1879 made it illegal to use anything to prevent contraception in the state. That’s right, nothing could be used to prevent pregnancy. Consequently due to their actions, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined to pay $100. Griswold appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the state was in breach of multiple amendments including the fourteenth, first, and of course, the third amendment. The argument based on the third amendment was that the home is and should be a private place. No one is to know what happens in the home, or in the bedroom for that matter. The only way to prove that the women who visited the clinic were actually using birth control would be storm their homes. In the end, it was found that Connecticut's actions were unconstitutional and this court case paved the way for future cases such as the famous Roe vs Wade

Here, again, we see exactly why the government sanctioned religious establishments of our day are hurriedly revising “certain articles” in their constitutions and administrations. Churches that have stopped being churches to become tax-exempt, nonprofit religious corporations have invited, nay, petitioned the wolves to oversee the sheep, thus giving the state consent to exert a legal force through their own policies. Now they must rewrite those policies before having something detestable legally forced up their aisles by the supreme judgment of their chosen shepherds.