A Detailed Case Study: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

This case study analyzes Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014), focusing on the legal issues surrounding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraception mandate. The case examines whether for-profit corporations can claim religious exemptions...Read More

Running Head: CASE STUDY
CASE STUDY OF:
BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY
LOBBY STORES, INC., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CASE STUDY
Issues Involved:
The issue in the given case is whether the mandate provision and compulsory
contraception and birth control to the female employees violate the provisions of Religious
Freedom and Restoration Act in profit-making organizations.
Rules:
The rule in the given case is that it is the statutory right of every profit making as well as
the non-profit organizations to freely exercise their religion and religious beliefs. The decision in
this case has also involved the provisions from Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act relating to the meaning of ‘persons’.
In the given case, the Department of Health and Human Services has passed a new
decision that requires all the female employees of the profit making organization to abide by the
compulsory contraception policy for the birth control system. However, the same was exempted
in case of non-profit organizations because the religious beliefs contradicted the practice of
abortion and contraception was considered as a way of ending a life, which is the reason for
abortion also. Therefore, the foundation of the case was challenged targeting the difference
between the profit making and a non-profit making organization based on which, such an
exemption has been classified.
The Religious Land Use and the Institutionalized Persons Act states that the employees
of a profit making organization as well as that of the non-profit making organization are
recognized as persons and therefore, the organization itself holds the recognition of a person by
way of which, the employees are directly or indirectly affected by such decisions made by the

2CASE STUDY
Government. Non-Profit Organizations are such organizations that work within the framework of
charity and service to the community for its development. On the other hand, the profit-making
organizations are those, which, engage themselves in business and trade with the sole motive of
profit-maximization. However, the secondary objectives of such organizations are much more
than earning profits. It contributes to the community by way of charitable goals, and social
responsibility. Thus, the profit-making organizations may or may not have religious faiths,
which, if they do, the employees of such organization are bound to abide by the policies of the
company with respect to the faiths. Such an action does not amount to constitutional
infringement of absolute right to religion as mere interference as an incidental consequence to a
valid statute does not amount to any violation of right. This was confirmed in Employment
Decision, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith1. Therefore, it can be extracted
that the aim of the Department was only to provide general rules towards the contraception and
birth control policy in accordance to the religious beliefs of the profit making organization.
Further, it was held in Obergefell vs. Hodges2 that in spite of being the maker of the policy, no
organization has any right to avoid the belief or be detained by the Government without fair
procedure.
The First Amendment of Free Exercise of Religion explains regarding the free exercise of
religion and religious beliefs and faiths by any person, or an artificially created entity. As every
coin has two sides, no right is absolute. Every right is followed by a set of duties or reasonable
restrictions. As opined in Sherbet vs. Verner3, it was held by the court that any employment
1 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
2 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
3374 U.S. 398)

3CASE STUDY
contract and its clause violating the provisions of the First Amendment Right should be
considered a statutory violation.
Application:
In the light of above discussed rules, it can be highlighted that the decision passed by the
Department of Health and Human Services, covered the entire profit-making organizations to
abide by the mandate contraception policy where, it is mandatory for all such profit-making
organizations to provide FDA-approved birth control and contraceptive methods. Only the non-
profit organizations were exempted from the decision. In the given case, the defendants
contended themselves to be the non-profit organization with religious belief not approving the
contraception process and methods. They further highlighted the provisions of Rural Land Use
and Individualized Persons Act, where, it has been stated that all corporate entities shall be
recognized as persons because the policies affecting the organization shall also be affecting the
employees both directly and indirectly. On the contrary, the plaintiffs contended that the
defendant company is a profit-making company and hence, they are not entitled to the
exemption.
The defendants are a national business chain of ancient artifacts with over 500 stores and
employing over 28000 people. The plaintiffs contended that the business has grown drastically
over the years and expansion is the living proof that the business has expanded well by earning
profits and has come out as a national brand. However, every organization may have their own
religious beliefs that may rule the company’s policies. Nevertheless, such belief does not make
the company as a non-profit organization.

4CASE STUDY
In the concurrence, Justice Kennedy states that the Government did not follow a
restrictive decision for loss as way to bind the profit-making organizations to compulsorily
provide contraception scheme to their female employees. The Government, along with the
affirmation of the Judiciary in the past precedents, has confirmed that the companies may violate
their own morality for the sake of providing contraception schemes to the female employees that
they themselves may find immoral.
On the contrary, Ginsburg, who formed a landmark decision deviating from the common
rule application, gave the first dissent. It was explained herein that the non-profit organization id
unified by a single notion that is its aim whereas, the profit-making organization primarily aims
only to earn profit and to achieve this goal, it employs people from various diversities of
communities irrespective of their religion or their religious beliefs. In Estate of Thorton vs.
Calder4, it was held that the statute which entitled the people to their absolute right to not to work
on Sabbath, to promote religion was struck down stating that no right is absolute. Every right is
followed by duty and reasonable restrictions. In Reynolds vs. United States5, it was held that
polygamy shall be recognized as a criminal offence even in the cases where the religion has
allowed it. This is done so to recognize the activities, which are wrong, is considered unlawful,
and subsequently punish the offender for the same. However, for the first time in Cantwell vs.
Connecticut6, the Amendment Right was applied to the state, which was found violating such
right. It was stated that the officials do not have the capacity to decide which solicitations are
religious and which are not. Such an act in the name of religious truth shall amount to the
violation of the right to free exercise of the religion. Therefore, it can be understood from the
4 472 U.S. 703 (1985)
5 98 US 145
6 310 US 296

5CASE STUDY
discussions that the First Amendment is applicable to the government as well as to the corporate
entities.
Breyer & Kagan put the second dissent forth, in accordance to which the dissent of
Ginsburg has been contrasted. In their opinion, the demarcation between the profit making and
the non-profit organization should be made crystal clear.
The Third Circuit had decided in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services,
that the decision should be abided by all the profit-making organizations by providing
contraception schemes to all the female employees in the organization. However, in the Tenth
Circuit, the majority opinion by Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, reversed the decision of the Third Circuit stating that Title1 of
the United States Code explains the term “person”, which shall include all the joint ventures,
firms, corporate entities, societies and others, including the profit-making organizations. They
also opined that the lawmakers would have also estimated that the persons would include family-
run businesses. However, it was explained that the family-run business, may seem like any other
business but they have the mindset of the family members who run the business. This means that
the religious belief of the family-run business is same to that of the members of the family. They
may have opened their business to diverse communities for the sake of earning profits but the
people running the business are the people of the family having their own religious beliefs.
Therefore, the right tom free exercise of religion shall be applicable to the profit-making
organizations where the owners or the businesspersons do not have to violate their morality and
accept a policy, which their religious faith considers as immoral. However, this rule is a narrow
concept, which shall be applicable only in the cases of birth control and contraception policies as

6CASE STUDY
decided by the Government. The concept is narrow so that it does not complicate the provisions
of the Act with that of the rule in general.
Conclusion:
It was held by the Court that the profit making organizations are free to choose whether to make
the contraception mandate applicable for their female employees in their organization.

7CASE STUDY
Bibliography:
Scholars and Journals:
Ganske, Sue. "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.-The US Supreme Court Holds that the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act Trumps the Affordable Care Act." J. Contemp. Health L. &
Pol'y 31 (2015): 1.
Marshall, Jennifer A. "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Protecting Religious Freedom in a Diverse
Society." NYUJL & Liberty 10 (2016): 327.
Retrieved from https://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter5text.htm
"Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-354. Accessed 30 Jun.
2019.
Luchenister, Alex J. "A New Era of Inequality: Hobby Lobby and Relgious Exemptions from
Anti-Discrimination Laws." Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 9 (2015): 63.
Ganske, Sue. "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.-The US Supreme Court Holds that the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act Trumps the Affordable Care Act." J. Contemp. Health L. &
Pol'y 31 (2015): 1.
Casanova, Jose. 1994. “Private and Public Religions.” In Public Religions in the Modern World,
University Of Chicago Press, p. 40–66.
Thiemann, Ronald. 1996. “The Constitutional Tradition: A Perplexing Legacy”. In Religion in
Public

8CASE STUDY
Life. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Ch. 3, (pp. 42-72).
Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354#
Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Case laws:
Reynolds vs United States (98 US 145)
Employment Decision, Department of Human Resources of Oregon vs. Smith (494 U.S. 872
(1990))
Obergefell vs. Hodges (576 U.S. ___ (2015))
Sherbert vs. Verner (374 U.S. 398)
Estate of Thornton vs. Calder (472 U.S. 703 (1985))
Cantwell vs. Connecticut (310 US 296)