{"id":351978,"date":"2016-04-04T11:02:46","date_gmt":"2016-04-04T16:02:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/family\/reproductive-rights\/the-hobby-lobby-case-contraception-and-religious-freedom.html"},"modified":"2023-07-27T14:23:23","modified_gmt":"2023-07-27T19:23:23","slug":"the-hobby-lobby-case-contraception-and-religious-freedom","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/family\/reproductive-rights\/the-hobby-lobby-case-contraception-and-religious-freedom.html","title":{"rendered":"The Hobby Lobby Case: Contraception and Religious Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

The Hobby Lobby Case: Contraception and Religious Freedom<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Eric Harvey, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Aviana Cooper, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Hobby Lobby initiated a lawsuit because they objected to providing birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act.  Hobby Lobby had religious objections, arguing that providing birth control went against their Christian faith. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby, allowing them to refuse birth control coverage for their employees. <\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.<\/a>, <\/i>a case with a massive effect on reproductive rights. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court decided that closely held corporations<\/a> could refuse to cover employee birth control.<\/p>\r\n

The groundbreaking decision established that some corporations can have "sincerely held religious beliefs." And requiring them to provide birth control as part of a health insurance package violated federal law.<\/p>\r\n

Below is an explanation of the Hobby Lobby<\/i> case, a summary of the Court’s decision, and how it affects employers and employees.<\/p>\r\n

Background: How Did This Case Reach the Supreme Court?<\/h2>\r\n

Two important Supreme Court decisions and the passage of the Affordable Care Act set the stage for Burwell v. Hobby Lobby<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n

Previous Supreme Court Decisions<\/h3>\r\n

In 1990, the Supreme Court decided another important religious freedom case, Employment Division v. Smith<\/a>. This case involved two members of the Native American Church who lost their jobs due to drug use after they used peyote as part of a religious ceremony.<\/p>\r\n

The Supreme Court held that the government has an interest in regulating substances like peyote. So it could burden religious liberty if only incidental to that interest. The federal government could outlaw peyote. But it could only do so as long as it wasn’t done to discriminate against Native religious practices.<\/p>\r\n

Around the same time, lobbyists convinced Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993<\/a> (RFRA). This Act required a "compelling" government interest to justify burdens on the exercise of religion. This set a higher bar than the standard laid out in Smith<\/i>.<\/p>\r\n

Then in 2010, the Supreme Court decided Citizens United<\/a>.<\/i> There, the Court removed restrictions on money corporations spend on political campaigns. This was part of an ongoing trend to grant corporations similar legal rights to actual human beings.<\/p>\r\n

Birth Control Mandate Under the ACA<\/h3>\r\n

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act<\/a> (ACA) in 2010, including a \u201ccontraceptive mandate." This meant health insurance coverage was required to include birth control. This included insurance packages provided by employers.<\/p>\r\n

Some employers strongly opposed birth control, especially emergency contraception like Plan B.<\/p>\r\n

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oklahoma against the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The craft store company claimed the contraception mandate violated the First Amendment<\/a> and the RFRA. Hobby Lobby argued that corporations have religious rights comparable to any American. Conestoga Wood Specialties, a family-owned furniture business in Pennsylvania, filed a similar lawsuit.<\/p>\r\n

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hobby Lobby was a "person" entitled to the free exercise of religion. But the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contraceptive coverage rule in Conestoga Woods’ case. They reasoned that a for-profit corporation could not "engage in religious exercise."<\/p>\r\n

When different federal Courts of Appeals disagree, the U.S. Supreme Court exercises judicial review<\/a>. The Supreme Court decides which view aligns with the Constitution, and that rule becomes the law of the land.<\/p>\r\n

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Decision<\/h2>\r\n

The case began in 2012, and Hobby Lobby is a chain of retail stores. That year, the chain filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In the lawsuit, Hobby Lobby challenged the enforcement of the contraception rule under the Affordable Care Act. This rule required coverage for contraception methods in employer-provided insurance plans.<\/p>\r\n

Hobby Lobby claimed the following protected employers’ rights to deny contraception coverage:<\/p>\r\n