Burwell Vs. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.: Court Case Study

Pam took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and

In the case of Sam vs. Quinn, his landlord, and the national chain store. Sam is who is working on a great innovation, a device that sounds like a barking dog that will help assist in the safety and welfare of others. Several months ago, Sam hit the jackpot that would change his life and landed in a verbal contract to sell 1000 units to a national chain store. However, this young inventor has been mass producing this product from his place of residence, his apartment, own by Mr. Quinn. Sam arrives home one day to find two letters, one from the chain store demanding the 1000 units be delivered immediately. The other was an eviction notice from Mr. Quinn stating that his barking machine has been pestering the other tenants and that Sam was not supposed to be conducting business from his apartment. Sam is furious at both situations and decides to pro-sue the matters. Therefore, before the court can rule on these cases, the court should determine the various elements whether there is a valid contract, a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam’s claims.

That stipulation opened the door for the recognition of corporations having personhood in matters of free speech (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). These events made the recognition of corporate freedom of religion inevitable, and it became reality with the Burwell decision when the majority

In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count

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

There have been two major Supreme Court lawsuits pertaining to the Affordable Care Act that could have resulted in the repeal or dismantling of the law. One of the Supreme Court lawsuits was the 2012 “NIFIB v. Seleblius” case, which ruled in favor of the ACA with some changes implemented. The other lawsuit was the 2015 “King v. Burwell” case which once again ruled in favor of the ACA. In June of 2016, the Supreme Court saved Obamacare yet again. The ruling held that the Affordable Care Act authorized federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges, but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces. It staved off a major political showdown and a mad scramble in states that would have needed to act to prevent millions from losing health care coverage. These Supreme Court decisions prove that they were in favor of Obamacare, although it was damaging to our

Very quickly, I still think the answer is no. Assuming the officer was responding to an emergency and entering unannounced and unescorted, I believe he should have anticipated the guard dog as a possibility. Were there “Beware of Dog” signs or any similar warnings? If yes, then he definitely should have anticipated it. Plus, I would think that officers are trained to anticipate a guard dog or other similar dangers when entering a premise, especially if unannounced or unescorted. However, if the owner escorted the officer in or invited him in and did not warn the officer of the dog, then he could state a claim.

Plaintiffs in King v. Burwell filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District for Virginia, challenging the IRS rule that tax subsidies are available to all eligible Americans regardless of whether they purchase insurance on a state-run or federally-facilitated Exchange. Among other things, plaintiffs argued that they will be economically injured by the IRS ruling because they will be required to choose between buying health insurance or paying the Minimum Coverage Provision penalty. Plaintiffs also claimed that the purpose of the ACA was to induce States to set up their own Exchanges by withdrawing tax subsidies from States that chose to allow the federal government to operate Exchanges on their behalf.

The most-recent court case, attempting to discredit and possibly break Obamacare, is known as King v. Burwell. This case is the third in the past four years to have arguments presented before United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, which is unusual as the Supreme Court is typically selective of the cases it chooses to hear and doesn’t take many cases a year (Four Words Could Bring the Law Down). Prior cases brought before the Court questionedthe legality of forcing individuals to cover themselves ( known as “individual mandate” ), religious objections to birth control, and other mandated coverage elements.

In the case of Varner v. National Super Markets, 94 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1110 (1997), Ms. Varner was severely harassed by a coworker and her fiance reported the harassment to the manger of the store (Walsh, 2013). Since it was stated in the company policy that the victim was report the harassment themselves to the human resource department, the manager did not do anything about the reports (Walsh, 2013). Sexual harassment is widespread and up to half of women in the workforce experience it at some point, but it is rare to have a formal complaint filed (Vijayasiri, 2008).

The article entitled "Health Care Reform and the Supreme Court (Affordable Care Act)," is a summary article on the three days of arguments made before the Supreme Court of the United States on the new Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as "Obamacare." As the article states, this case could very well be the one case that both President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts are most remembered for.

Hobby Lobby, 2013). The federal government declined to impose any restrictions and or fines until the case was resolved (Wyatt, 2014) by the Supreme Court of the United States the following year, eventually ruling in favor by a slight margin for corporations based on religious objections (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014).

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

The Halbig vs. Burwell legal case came to the attention of the healthcare field and the Supreme Court because of a question of whether or not the IRS was overstepping its bounds by providing subsidies to people who were purchasing their insurance through the federal exchanges rather than through a state exchange. The legislation specifically addressed giving subsidies to people who purchased through exchanges set up by the state. It did not make provisions for subsidies for people whose state did not develop an exchange, therefore the argument was that the IRS overstepped the law by giving subsidies to people who purchased their insurance through the federal exchanges. The plaintiffs were arguing that it was not lawful for these people to be

These opponents have been known to seek the help of the courts in their opposition to Obamacare. In the case of the National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, the Supreme court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the individual mandate