Case Brief 31 - Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, INC PDF

Preview

Summary

It's a reading notes for the cases that we had to turn in every class...

Description

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Facts: Legally Relevant Facts : A requirement that employers’ group health plans furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women, which Hobby Lobby raises as religious objections to four contraceptives. Procedurally Relevant Facts : The Court, divided 5 – 4, decided the case not by interpreting textual provisions of the Constitution but rather the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) In contrast to the Third Circuit, the Tenth Circuit held that the Greens’ two for-profit businesses are “persons” within the meaning of RFRA and therefore may bring suit under that law

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (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. Whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion. Holding: The regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion. The Court does not hold that for-profit corporations and other commercial enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs, nor the Court hold that such corporations have free rein to take steps that impose disadvantages on others or that require the general public to pick up the tab. The Court does not hold or suggest that RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby. The judgement of Tenth Circuit in No. 13-354 is affirmed. The Judgement of the Third Circuit in no. 13-356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reasoning: The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price.

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order of the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. Dissenting Argument: Justice Ginsburg : “Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.” “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives, and Congress acted on that understanding when, as part of a nationwide insurance program intended to be comprehensive, it called for coverage of preventive care responsive to women’s needs.” “That Hobby Lobby and Conestoga resist coverage for only 4 of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives does not lessen these compelling interests in public health and women’s well being].” “Conestoga suggests that, if its employers had to acquire and pay for the contraceptives (to which the corporation objects) on their own, a tax credit would qualify as a less restrictive alternative … Conestoga’s alternative would require a woman to reach into her own pocket in the first instance, and it would do nothing for the woman too poor to be aided by a tax credit.” “In sum, in view of what Congress sought to accomplish, none of the proffered alternatives would satisfactorily serve the compelling interest to which Congress responded.” “There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims, … or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held… The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan : “We agree with Justice Ginsburg that the plaintiff’s challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits. We need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under RFRA.”...