Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell
Argued: March 25, 2014
Decided: June 30, 2014
Background
The First Amendment protects the right of people to freely exercise their religion. This means that
the government cannot outlaw any religious beliefs. Sometimes, however, conduct related to those
beliefs conflicts with government laws and regulations. Courts are often asked to rule on whether
the government is allowed to forbid some conduct required by someone’s religious belief or compel
conduct that is forbidden by that belief.
If a law’s purpose is to negatively affect the practice of a religious belief, it will almost always be
unconstitutional. Trickier situations arise when the government does not intend to restrict religious
exercise, but the law does so anyway. For example, a law that requires photos on drivers’ licenses
may not intend to restrict religious exercise, but has the effect of doing so for someone whose
religion prevents them from being photographed. Under the First Amendment, if the law
substantially affects the free exercise of religion, then the government must show that the law
pursues an important government goal, and that giving a religious exemption to the law would make
it substantially more difficult to achieve that goal.
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that if a criminal law is applicable to everyone equally, it does not
matter if it burdens someone’s religious beliefs. A wide range of religious groups and a bipartisan
group of elected officials disagreed with that ruling, and passed the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (RFRA) in response. The RFRA gives people additional protection in the exercise of their
beliefs. It requires that the federal government not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of
religion.” If a person shows that the government has substantially burdened the exercise of his
religion, then the government must show the action is necessary to achieve a very important
government goal. The RFRA does not apply to state governments.
This is a case about whether a government restriction on a business can violate the religious freedom
of the business itself, or of its owners.
Facts
The Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) requires employers to provide health
insurance to their employees. The law requires that all health insurance plans provide free coverage
for many “essential” services, including some cancer screening, preventive infant care, certain
immunizations, and birth control. The law requires insurance plans to cover 20 types of
contraceptive coverage (birth control) for women. Employers who choose not to provide health
insurance must pay a penalty for each employee not covered.
© 2014 Street Law, Inc.
1
Hobby Lobby is an arts-and-crafts chain with over 500 stores and 13,000 employees. Conestoga is a
company that manufactures cabinets and has 950 employees. Both companies are for-profit,
privately held businesses. The owners of each operate their business according to Christian religious
beliefs. The owners object to providing four of the contraceptives covered under the Act—they say
that the use of these contraceptives violates their religious principles, and therefore paying for
insurance that covers them does so as well. The owners sued the government on behalf of
themselves and their businesses.
The district court ruled against the companies. When Hobby Lobby appealed that ruling, the appeals
court ruled that the requirement likely violates the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. When
Conestoga appealed, that appeals court decided that the requirement was constitutional and did not
violate the RFRA.
Issue
Do the owners of a family business, or a business itself, have free exercise rights (under the First
Amendment or the RFRA) that are violated by a federal requirement to provide health insurance
that covers contraception?
Constitutional Amendment, Statutes and Precedents
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.”
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)
The government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is
the least restrictive way for the government to achieve a very important interest.
Concept of Corporate Personhood
According to federal law, unless a statute says otherwise, the word “person” includes corporations,
companies, associations and individuals. This is known as “corporate personhood,” and has been
part of our federal law for more than 150 years. The Court has upheld this idea in several Free
Speech cases, most recently in Citizens United, where the Court said that corporations have First
Amendment free speech protections.
United States v. Lee (1982)
An Amish business owner refused to pay social security taxes for himself and his employees, saying
that a government social security system violated his religious beliefs. When the government
attempted to collect the taxes, Lee argued that forcing him to pay taxes interfered with his free
exercise of religion. The government argued that it had a compelling interest in having a national
social security system, and religious exemptions could undermine the entire system. The Court
© 2014 Street Law, Inc.
2
decided that although it affected Lee’s religious beliefs, under the First Amendment the
government’s interest was sufficient and there was no constitutional requirement for exemptions. It
also said that the employers must follow the law on behalf of their employees. This case was decided
before the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal (2006)
The federal government seized a type of tea from a branch of the church Unaio do Vegetal. The tea
contained a drug called hoasca that was banned under federal law. The church appealed, saying the
tea was for religious use and could not be restricted. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal
government cannot prevent a religious organization from using an otherwise illegal drug as a
sacrament in religious ceremonies. The Court said that under the RFRA, the government is required
to create exceptions in laws for religious freedom, unless it has a very important interest. The
government did not show a very important interest in regulating the religious use of this drug.
Arguments for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga





A business owner can exercise religion while running a business, by doing things like closing
on Sundays. The requirement to provide health insurance with contraceptive coverage
impacts the business owner even though the requirement is on the business, because the
owners must implement it. Taking the action to implement this requirement violates the
business owners’ beliefs in this case.
A business can have its own religious views. The Supreme Court has long held that
corporations can have certain rights that individual people have. Religious freedom should
be one of those rights. Christianity is central to these businesses; it is their religious belief.
The contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion for both the owner
and the business because they would have to pay fines if they do not provide health
insurance that includes contraceptive coverage. Providing that insurance violates their
religious beliefs.
The government could find less restrictive ways to achieve the goal of contraceptive
coverage. For example, the government could provide the four contraceptives at issue in this
case.
The government does not really have a very important interest in providing contraceptive
coverage. If it did, it would not have exempted so many employers from the requirement—
including churches, religious non-profits, and some for-profit companies whose pre-existing
health insurance plans are allowed under the new rules.
Arguments for Burwell

The RFRA was passed to protect free-exercise rights for individuals and religious
organizations. The act is not meant to undermine laws governing corporations—which have
all sorts of regulations, such as requirements for minimum wage and overtime.
© 2014 Street Law, Inc.
3





The owners’ free exercise rights are not violated because the law regulates the business, not
the owners. Many laws are in place to keep business owners separate from their
corporations.
The Court has never ruled that for-profit corporations have the same religious freedom
rights as individuals. To say they do would be a huge expansion of the law, and could lead to
all sorts of unintended consequences. Could employers then refuse to cover other medical
treatments, like blood transfusions and vaccines? Could companies get out of other, nonhealth care laws by claiming a religious exemption?
The mandate does not substantially burden religious exercise. First, the owners are not
directly involved in providing the contraceptives—they simply fund health insurance that
meets government standards. Second, if they do object, they can decline to provide health
coverage and pay a $2,000 per employee penalty, which is likely less than the cost of
insurance anyway.
The owners’ religious rights should not trump the 13,000 employees’ health rights. Not all of
the employees hold the same beliefs as the business owners. The corporation should not be
able to restrict their access to certain types of coverage based on the owners’ religious
beliefs.
The government has a very important interest in requiring health insurance plans to cover
contraception. Access to effective, free contraceptives leads to fewer unintended
pregnancies, which is important for public health. Unintended pregnancies are connected to
higher rates of abortion and to negative health consequences for women and babies.
© 2014 Street Law, Inc.
4
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled for Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito wrote the majority decision, which Chief
Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justice Kennedy wrote a
concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion.. Justice Sotomayor joined the full
dissent and Justices Breyer and Kagan joined all but one part of the dissent.
Majority
The Court ruled that the contraceptive requirement is a violation of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. First, the Court decided that closely held for-profit corporations have religious free
exercise rights under the RFRA. They said that Congress intended the Act to broadly protect
religious freedom. Next, the justices examined whether the health care law “substantially burdened”
the corporations’ free exercise rights. The Court decided it did, because it required companies to do
something against their beliefs or pay large fines. According to the RFRA, a law may only
substantially burden free exercise if it is the least restrictive way to achieve a very important
government goal. The Court assumed that the government’s goal in providing access to birth
control was very important, but decided that this was not the least restrictive way possible to meet it.
The justices said that the government is already allowing exemptions for religious organizations and
non-profit corporations, so they could simply extend the same exemption to for-profit companies.
The Majority also cautioned that this decision only applies to the contraceptive mandate, not to
other types of insurance coverage mandates such as vaccines.
Dissent
Justice Ginsburg’s dissent disagreed with the majority on several points. She argued that
contraceptive coverage for women is critical and that the beliefs of a corporation or owner should
not override women’s right to coverage. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor argued that Congress
passed RFRA as a narrow statute to return the laws to where they were before the Court decided a
case called Smith v. Unemployment Division. Before that case, the Court had not recognized religious
free exercise rights for corporations, so here the majority went beyond what Congress intended.
Justices Breyer and Kagan did not believe the Court did not need to address whether for-profit
corporations can bring claims under RFRA.
The dissent also argued that the contraceptive requirement does not substantially burden a religious
belief—the companies are not the ones choosing or using the birth control, they are only required to
provide health insurance that covers it. The dissent stated that this is the least restrictive way to
achieving the compelling government interest of contraceptive coverage for women. The dissenters
strongly warned of the great risk posed by this decision, which they say might allow for-profit
corporations to opt out of any law they claim violates their religious beliefs.
© 2014 Street Law, Inc.
5