Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Supreme Court to Decide Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to Affordable Care Act
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 29, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
The United States Supreme Court will decide whether a business such as Hobby Lobby is required to provide its female employees with health insurance that includes access to birth control, even if doing so violates the religious beliefs of the company’s owners.
Oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores were heard on March 25, 2014.
The owners of Hobby Lobby and the Christian bookstore chain Mardel, object to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that require companies to provide their female employees with health insurance that includes no-cost access to 20 forms of birth control, including two types of the “morning after pill” and two kinds of interuterine devices (IUDs). The owners of Hobby Lobby believe that human life begins at conception, so their compliance with the ACA in providing these forms of birth control would make them “complicit in abortion.”
Hobby Lobby argued that the mandate to provide birth control to its employees violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the individual’s religious rights under the First Amendment. RFRA provides that the government cannot impose a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion unless that burden uses the narrowest possible way to promote a very important interest of the government.
During oral arguments, three of the Court’s more liberal Justices (Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg) focused on the potential scope of allowing companies to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds. The Justices were concerned opening the door would lead to refusals to cover vaccinations, blood transfusions or other potentially objectionable procedures. They worried that a decision in Hobby Lobby’s favor would result in religious objectors coming “out of the woodwork.”
The Justices also examined the “substantial burden” on Hobby Lobby for exercising its religious beliefs. If the company decided not to provide insurance for its employees at all, the cost would be a penalty of $2000 per employee, which is likely less expensive than paying to provide insurance. Thus, the Justices reasoned there may not be a substantial burden.
The Court also discussed whether a corporation has the right to exercise religion, but seemed to believe this case could be limited to corporations that are owned entirely by one family, as is the case here.
Justices Breyer and Kennedy appear to hold the swing votes. Breyer asked few questions during arguments and they did not reveal which way he is leaning. Kennedy’s only indication of his thoughts occurred when he mentioned that under the government’s view of the case, a for-profit company like Hobby Lobby could also be required to pay for insurance that would cover abortions.
Check back in June for an update on the Court’s ruling.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss your company’s policies, please contact me, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Supreme Court to Decide Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to Affordable Care Act
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The United States Supreme Court will decide whether a business such as Hobby Lobby is required to provide its female employees with health insurance that includes access to birth control, even if doing so violates the religious beliefs of the company’s owners.
Oral arguments in the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores were heard on March 25, 2014.
The owners of Hobby Lobby and the Christian bookstore chain Mardel, object to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that require companies to provide their female employees with health insurance that includes no-cost access to 20 forms of birth control, including two types of the “morning after pill” and two kinds of interuterine devices (IUDs). The owners of Hobby Lobby believe that human life begins at conception, so their compliance with the ACA in providing these forms of birth control would make them “complicit in abortion.”
Hobby Lobby argued that the mandate to provide birth control to its employees violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the individual’s religious rights under the First Amendment. RFRA provides that the government cannot impose a “substantial burden” on the exercise of religion unless that burden uses the narrowest possible way to promote a very important interest of the government.
During oral arguments, three of the Court’s more liberal Justices (Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg) focused on the potential scope of allowing companies to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds. The Justices were concerned opening the door would lead to refusals to cover vaccinations, blood transfusions or other potentially objectionable procedures. They worried that a decision in Hobby Lobby’s favor would result in religious objectors coming “out of the woodwork.”
The Justices also examined the “substantial burden” on Hobby Lobby for exercising its religious beliefs. If the company decided not to provide insurance for its employees at all, the cost would be a penalty of $2000 per employee, which is likely less expensive than paying to provide insurance. Thus, the Justices reasoned there may not be a substantial burden.
The Court also discussed whether a corporation has the right to exercise religion, but seemed to believe this case could be limited to corporations that are owned entirely by one family, as is the case here.
Justices Breyer and Kennedy appear to hold the swing votes. Breyer asked few questions during arguments and they did not reveal which way he is leaning. Kennedy’s only indication of his thoughts occurred when he mentioned that under the government’s view of the case, a for-profit company like Hobby Lobby could also be required to pay for insurance that would cover abortions.
Check back in June for an update on the Court’s ruling.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss your company’s policies, please contact me, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.