Posted: August 4th, 2022

Week 3 Case Brief Assignment BUSN623

Student Name
Week 3 Case Brief Assignment
BUSN623
American Public University
Date

Case Citation: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay).
Facts:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer made it mandatory for employers to provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which had promulgated this policy, made an exemption for certain organizations, i.e., religious not-for-profit organizations-from the contraceptive regulation. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, owned by the Green family (founded by David Green) was built around the principles of the Christian faith, and incessantly expressed its desire to run the organization in accordance with Biblical precepts, one of which is that contraception use and abortion is immoral. The Mardel Christian and Educational Supply owned by Green’s son Mart, and Conestoga Wood Specialties owned by the Hahn family also held the same beliefs about contraception and abortion. Consequently, they brought a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that they should not be coerced to offer insurance coverage for contraceptives to their workers since they (corporation owners) held a religious objection. To support their positions, they cited the cover violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Hobby Lobby’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied by the district court. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment.
Procedural history:
• The district court that heard the Hanh case declined to grant the plaintiff a preliminary injunction; the decision was affirmed by the Third Circuit. According to this court, a corporation that engages in making profits cannot take part in religious exercise.
• The district court that heard the cases involving Hobby Lobby and Mardel also declined to grant these organizations a preliminary injunction. Nonetheless, this decision was reversed by the Tenth Circuit. This court cited that under the RFRA, businesses are “persons,” and the contraception requirement considerably violated their free exercise of religion.
• Certiorari was granted by the US Supreme Court.
Issue:
Does the RFRA of 1993 permit for-profit corporations to refuse to provide their workers with coverage for contraception on the basis of religious objections of the owners of the organization?
Rule(s):
• The RFRA of 1993
• The RLUIPA of 2000
Application/Analysis:
Yes. According to the Supreme Court, when passing the RFRA, Congress intended that it be interpreted applying to companies because they comprise of individuals who utilize them to attain desired ends. Since the requirement to provide female employees with contraception coverage mandates religious companies to fund what they perceive to be abortion, which is against their religious beliefs, or be subjected to fines, it leads to the creation of a considerable burden that is not the least limiting technique of satisfying the interests of the government. The court further stated that a less limiting method in fact existed in the form of the HHS’s exemption for not-for profit companies, and therefore, this should also be applicable for-profit organizations like Hobby Lobby.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the free exercise of religion is applicable for both for-profit and not-for profit corporations. The regulations of the HHS imposed a great burden on the free exercise of religion as adhering to it was against the religious objections to abortion held by Hobby Lobby’s owners. Therefore, corporations should not be compelled to compromise their own morality.
Dissenting opinion:
Justice Ginsburg
The court digressed from precedent; previously, organizations were required to adhere to laws that conflicted with their religious beliefs. The Justice also noted that a big difference existed between for-profit and not-for profit companies. The former hires individuals with different religious beliefs and views while the latter is united by a religious core principle or religion. Lastly, the Court applied a standard that was more stringent than required by the RLUIPA.
Justices Breyer & Kagan
The court could have decided the case in favor of HHS on the merits as indicated in the first part of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.

Order | Check Discount