CASE BRIEF

CASE BRIEF

Tittle : Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).

Facts:

Hobby Lobby, Inc. filed for an injunction against health and human service secretary regarding the imminent enforcement of the contraceptive mandate against their religious believes. They argued that implementation of the regulation would substantially infringe their religious rights, yet the constitution prohibits the senate from making laws that prohibit religion. The company opined that four out of the twenty mandatory contraceptives approve by the FDA were contrary to their Christian beliefs because they amounted to abortion. Besides, Hobby Lobby argued that HHS imposed a hefty penalty of $100, which introduces a substantial burden of free exercise of religion.

Procedural History:

The case was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and appeared as a consolidation with another case, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Sebelius appeal. Hobby Lobby sought an initial injunction at the district court. The respondents appealed at the tenth circuit. The court ruled that non-profit religious organizations are considered persons under law. Besides, the coverage constituted a substance; the burden for the plaintiff's exercise of their religious believes. Based on the judgment, the respondent challenged the decision in an appeal entertained by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issues:

The Supreme Court sought to establish whether corporations are persons in using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1993). The decision of the Third Circuit appeal held that organizations established for profit should not participate in furtherance of religious matters. Besides, the application intended to explain if the coverage amounted to a substantial burden of free use of religion. Finally, that appeal was designed to determine whether the mandate remained the least-restrictive method of advancing the service.

Rule(s):

The issue highlighted essential aspects of law including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993). Some provision of the Act argues that for-profit organization could suspend legally mandated programs of religious beliefs. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) provide that the government may compel organization in furtherance of public interest to disclose information. The court also considered the precedent in the case to demonstrate consistency with religious practice. The principles of law in RFRA and the rule established in the case formed the basis of solving the issue presented by the appellants.

Application/Analysis:

The court argued that non-for profit corporations qualified as a person under RFRA reference. The majority observed that congress did not demonstrate the intention to view the term under a narrower perspective, according to the Dictionary Act (1871). Besides, the court believe that the Hobby Lobby’s activities reflected an honest conviction of religion furtherance.

Moreover, Hobby Lobby had the right to engage in the activity. Also, it ruled that the insurance coverage of the four contraceptives amounted to a significant liability on Hobby Lobby and the penalty severe. The ruling sought to establish a precedent by defining the legality and mandate of insurance coverage by religious non-profit organizations.

Conclusion:

The court held that if the term person applied to an individual under RFRA, then, non-profit organizations cannot be excluded from the definition. The court ruled that the enforcement of the legally mandated contraceptive coverage was illegal under RFRA because it is infringes the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.

References

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. (2019). Supreme Court. Retrieved 10 September 2019, from www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf