Burwell V. Hobby Case Summary

Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is a court case that held a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30th, 2014.. The Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare, permitted for profit companies are held close by a family or a family trust to refuse only on certain religious grounds to help pay for mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs and devices for their employees’ health insurance plan. There are some exemptions available only for religious non-profit institutions. This exemption does not apply to Hobby Lobby for being a for-profit company. When the Green Family as representatives of Hobby Lobby Stores sued Kathryn Sebelius, This court case was originally called Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. , then had to be changed

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

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

In May, 1982, Big M Drug Mart in Calgary was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday in direct violation of the Lord's Day Act of 1906. At trial, the store was acquitted and an appeal was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal, the case then went on the Supreme Court of Canada. The question put before the Court was whether or not the Act infringed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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.

Religious Freedom is a phrase that I have been hearing more frequently as of lately. It has been paraded in social media, blogs, magazines, and nightly news. Although the biggest topic of discussion is Target allowing Transgenders to pick which ever bathroom they choose to use. Target currently now has three different restroom choices, a single stall family bathroom, a men’s and a women’s. With Target’s new policy people regardless of what ever gender they choose to be identified as can use which ever bathroom. This however goes against the norm, that we have been used to for centuries. The main problem the church has found with Targets new policy, is that Target is has decided to recognize Transgenders as a gender of their own. That now, instead of only having two genders being, man and woman that is traditional and Biblical thinking, Target now has three. However the third being “Transgender” can choose whichever restroom. You can see how this has thrown the church for a loop. With claims saying Target is promoting sin, and going against God’s holy standard.. etc.. etc. Therefore making this a religious freedom and a civil-rights issue.

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

While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,