Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving religious freedom and contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by Barack Obama. The case was brought by Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain owned by the Green family, who are Evangelical Christians and objected to providing certain types of contraception to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. The case was argued by Paul Clement on behalf of Hobby Lobby and Donald Verrilli Jr. on behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The decision was seen as a significant victory for religious liberty and was praised by Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Background

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was signed into law by Barack Obama in 2010 and required employers to provide health insurance to their employees, including contraception and sterilization services. Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain owned by the Green family, objected to providing certain types of contraception, such as the morning-after pill and intrauterine devices, on religious grounds. The Green family are Evangelical Christians and believed that these types of contraception were equivalent to abortion. The case was supported by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group, and Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit organization that advocates for religious freedom. The case was also opposed by American Civil Liberties Union, National Organization for Women, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The Case

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and was later appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, holding that the company had the right to religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case in 2013. The case was argued by Paul Clement on behalf of Hobby Lobby and Donald Verrilli Jr. on behalf of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The case was also supported by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Retail Federation, and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-4 decision that Hobby Lobby had the right to religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and was exempt from providing certain types of contraception to their employees. The decision was written by Samuel Alito and was joined by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts. The decision was opposed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The decision was seen as a significant victory for religious liberty and was praised by Pope Francis, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Southern Baptist Convention. The decision was also criticized by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and American Civil Liberties Union.

Impact and Reaction

The decision had a significant impact on the debate over contraception and religious freedom in the United States. The decision was seen as a victory for conservative Christians and was praised by Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and National Right to Life Committee. The decision was also criticized by liberal groups, such as American Civil Liberties Union, National Organization for Women, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The decision was also opposed by Democratic Party (United States), including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. The decision was supported by Republican Party (United States), including Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Ted Cruz.

Aftermath and Legacy

The decision has had a lasting impact on the law regarding contraception and religious freedom in the United States. The decision has been cited in numerous cases, including Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which involved a Catholic order of nuns who objected to providing contraception to their employees. The decision has also been the subject of numerous books and articles, including "Hobby Lobby and the HHS Mandate" by Douglas Laycock and "The Hobby Lobby Case and the Future of Contraception" by Reva Siegel. The decision has also been the subject of numerous conferences and symposia, including the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association and the Conference on Law and Religion at Yale Law School. The decision has also been recognized by Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, and Stanford Law Review. Category:United States Supreme Court cases