The Human And Health Services Department

Running Head: CASE ANALYSIS
CASE ANALYSIS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
CASE ANALYSIS
Facts
The human and health services department regulations implicate The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, 2010 that necessitate the health plan of employers’ groups to provide
screenings and preventive care for women devoid of expense sharing requirements. In this
scenario, the green family operates and owns Hobby Lobby stores it si national craft and art
chain having 500 stores and about 13000 employees (Franke, 2019). The business is organized
by the green family around the guidelines of Christian trust in addition to that expressed
explicitly the willingness to operate the corporation as per biblical precepts, it is believed by one
that application of contraception regarded as immoral (Beebe, 2018). The health care structure
based on employment under The patient Protection and affordable Act provides preventive care
such as contraceptive methods approved by the FDA. The green company as representative of
Hobby lobby stores litigated Kathleen Sebelius who is the secretary of the Human and health
services Department on September 12, 2012, challenging the requirement of contraception
(Donaldson, 2019). It is argued by the plaintiff that contraception requirement that rests on heath
care structure that shield contraception infringes the clause of free exercise and of the first
amendment in addition to that The religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993. The preliminary
injunction is sought by the plaintiff in the case to prevent tax penalty enforcement, which is
denied by the district court and which is affirmed by the two panels of judges of the appellate
court for the tenth circuit of the United States (Bean, 2019). The relief claimed is denied by the
supreme court and the plaintiff of the case filed for hearing of en banc in the appellate court. The
panel for the hearing of en banc in the appellate court reverses the decision and upholds that
corporation are treated as a person under the RFPA and protected liberty under the clause of free
exercise in the first amendment.

2
CASE ANALYSIS
Issue
The issue involved in the particular scenario is whether the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, 1993 permit for-profit corporation to refuse the health coverage of employees
on contraception to which the employees of the corporation would otherwise authorize depend
on the objection concerning religious factor of the owner of the corporation.
Rule
The rule of the case is for purpose of guaranteeing more extensive safeguards to the
freedom of religion; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 1993, entails that governmental
authority shall not impose a considerable burden to the exercise of the religious right of the
individual even though the liability is resulting from general applicability rule. The act defines
the term government that includes any agency or department of the United States (Weber, 2019).
If the government imposes a burden to individuals' religious freedom under the legislation that
the individuals are authorized to the exception from the principle, if not it is demonstrated by the
government that implication of burden to the individual in the pursuance of interest of the
compelling government (Rush, 2018). Furthermore is the least restraining method of advancing
that captivating government interest.
Analysis
These scenarios laid the connection of the First amendment along with three current
federal legislations. Congress in the year 2000 passed Religious land use and institutionalized
person act that widen the legislation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in reply to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Employment Division vs. Smith (1990). The

3
CASE ANALYSIS
legislation obliges the court to make application of stringent review standards to legislation that
had to intervene in the exercise of religious freedom and whether it is the core of religious belief
system. It is challenged by the federal legislation that in the scenario The affordable Care Act by
what the management of President Barack Obama had transformed the health care structure in
America. The legislation gives the entitlement to the health and human services department to
analyze what the employers need to shield in the capacity of preventive care to women and
contraceptives. It is decided by the health resources and services administration that non-profit
associations, religious employers that make opposition to the issue of contraception employers
less than 50 employees in addition to that few other businesses that are narrowly defined did not
require to deliver reportage in this zone. The green company denied initially the preliminary
injunction however it is ruled by ten circuits that they were protected by RLUIPA. Thus the case
was sent back to the trial court for granting the preliminary injunction.
Conclusion
Thus it is concluded that the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that the rules
infringe the RFRA that prohibits state government from initiate any steps that significantly held
back the implementation of religion if not constituted minimum means of restriction of catering
to the interest of the compelling government. It is ruled out by the court that the mandate of
contraceptive as use to the corporation that infringes RFRA. Furthermore, on the basis of the
assumption that the regulation caters the interest of the compelling government, it is held by the
court that there was not the minimum restrictive method regarding attending the interest as
because there lie other methods to guarantee that ever females had accessibility to certain
contraceptives that are cost-free.

4
CASE ANALYSIS
The supreme court of the United States in the case of Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores,
which is argued on March 24, 2014, and decided on June 30, 2014, held that the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act prevents the government from putting substantial encumbrance
regarding the individuals freedom of religion even though the encumbrance resulting from
general applicability rule unless the governmental authority describes the applicability of
encumbrance to the individuals. The Ninth Circuit court held in the case of Gordon vs. Drape
Inc, 909 F. 3d 257,261(9th circuit 2018) that on every event in which the is the application of
Rogers test it is established that it bars the claim of violation as the issue of law. Hobby Lobby
filed suit in September 2012 against the implementation of the rule of contraception rest on free
exercise provision in the first amendment. The district judge denied the request of Hobby Lobby
for the primary injunction. The tenth circuit court of the United States grants the case hearing.
Two appellate courts of sate ruled out against the coverage of contraception while others
supported it. The Supreme Court considers the case with Conestoga wood Specialities v.
Sebelius. It had also mentioned the ruling of Domino's Pizza, Inc. vs Mc. Donald that is held
against the owner of JWM whose agreement were violated due to racial disparity. It is argued
that Investment of JWM could not be victimized of discrimination through the owner then it can
be said that the party Hobby Lobby could not be victimized of religious discrimination.

5
CASE ANALYSIS
References
Bean, T. (2019). To the Person: RFRA's Blueprint for a Sustainable Exemption Regime. BYU L.
Rev., 1.
Beebe, B. (2018). What Trademark Law Is Learning from the Right of Publicity. Colum. JL &
Arts, 42, 389.
Donaldson, T. (2019). Androids and Corporations: Why Their Rights Derive from Purpose. Geo.
JL & Pub. Pol'y, 17, 853.
Franke, K. M. (2019). Brief: Amicus Brief in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New Jersey v.
Trump.
Rush, V. S. (2018). Religious Freedom and Self-Induced Abortion. Tulsa L. Rev., 54, 491.
Weber, M. C. (2019). Of Immigration, Public Charges, Disability Discrimination, and, of All
Things, Hobby Lobby. Public Charges, Disability Discrimination, and, of All Things,
Hobby Lobby (September 11, 2019).