Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court Victory
Unpacking the landmark decision that reshaped religious freedoms for family-owned businesses under federal mandates.
The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. marked a significant expansion of religious protections for closely held corporations, allowing them to opt out of certain Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates based on owners’ faith-based objections. This ruling affirmed that for-profit entities could assert rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), challenging the government’s contraceptive coverage requirement for employees.
The Origins of a Family Business Empire
Hobby Lobby began as a modest venture in 1972 when David Green, an Evangelical Christian, opened a small storefront in Oklahoma City selling picture frames and craft supplies. From humble garage operations, the company grew into a national chain with over 700 stores, employing more than 21,000 people and generating billions in revenue. The Green family, including David’s wife Barbara and their children, infused the business with Biblical principles, closing stores on Sundays and donating a substantial portion of profits to Christian ministries.
Parallel to Hobby Lobby, the Greens operated Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores. These family-run enterprises symbolized the American dream: hard work, faith-driven ethics, and community impact. Until 2012, their health plans covered most contraceptives without issue. However, changes under the ACA introduced conflict.
The ACA Contraceptive Mandate: A Clash of Values
Enacted in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aimed to expand healthcare access, including preventive services for women. In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (later Sylvia Burwell), issued guidelines requiring employer-sponsored insurance to cover FDA-approved contraceptives without cost-sharing. This “contraceptive mandate” exempted religious nonprofits but applied to for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.
The Greens objected to four specific methods—Plan B (morning-after pill), Ella (week-after pill), and two intrauterine devices (IUDs)—believing they could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, equating to abortion in their faith. They had no issue with the other 16 methods and continued covering those. Complying would force participation in what they saw as facilitating the destruction of embryonic life, violating their sincerely held beliefs.
The Future of AI: Preventing a Big Tech Monopoly >
| Aspect | Mandate Requirement | Green Objection |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage Scope | 20 FDA-approved contraceptives | 4 specific methods (Plan B, Ella, Copper IUD, Hormonal IUD) |
| Cost to Employer | No copays or deductibles | Seen as complicity in abortion |
| Penalties for Non-Compliance | $100/day per employee (~$475M/year for Hobby Lobby) | Or drop coverage (~$26M penalties) |
| Exemptions | Churches, nonprofits with religious identity | None for closely held for-profits |
Legal Foundations: RFRA and Corporate Personhood
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was Congress’s response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision narrowing First Amendment protections. RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it demonstrates a compelling interest via the least restrictive means. The Greens argued the mandate violated RFRA, claiming their corporations qualified as “persons” entitled to these protections.
A pivotal issue was whether for-profit corporations possess religious beliefs. The Court referenced the Dictionary Act (1 U.S.C. §1), defining “person” to include corporations. RFRA’s text did not exclude for-profits, unlike some laws distinguishing nonprofits. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion emphasized that closely held corporations—owned by few individuals like the Greens—reflect owners’ beliefs directly.
- Substantial Burden Test: Forcing payment for objected contraceptives created an unavoidable choice: violate faith or face crippling fines ($1.3M daily for Hobby Lobby).
- Compelling Interest: Government claimed public health, but Court noted exemptions for nonprofits undermined uniformity.
- Least Restrictive Means: Alternatives existed, like nonprofit accommodation (third-party payments) or tax credits, making the mandate overbroad.
The Path Through the Courts
In 2012, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (another family firm owned by the Hahns, Mennonites) sued HHS in separate circuits. Lower courts split: the Tenth Circuit granted Hobby Lobby an injunction, ruling corporations could claim RFRA rights; the Third Circuit sided against Conestoga.
The Supreme Court consolidated the cases, hearing arguments in March 2014. On June 30, 2014, in a 5-4 decision authored by Alito (joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas), the Court ruled for the businesses. Justice Kennedy concurred, stressing respect for sincere beliefs. The dissent by Justice Ginsburg (joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) warned of a slippery slope, potentially allowing employers to deny vaccines or blood transfusions.
Core Arguments in the Majority Opinion
Alito’s opinion systematically dismantled the mandate:
- Corporations as Persons: RFRA protects “persons,” including closely held firms where owners’ faith permeates operations.
- Sincere Beliefs: No dispute over the Greens’ convictions; courts defer to sincerity.
- Burden Established: Direct financial penalties linked compliance to religious violation.
- Government Fails Strict Scrutiny: HHS couldn’t prove compelling need for this mandate against objectors, nor least restrictive means, given accommodations elsewhere.
The Court limited scope to closely held corporations, avoiding broader implications for public companies.
Dissenting Perspectives and Criticisms
Ginsburg’s dissent argued RFRA targeted discrete burdens, not broad programs like ACA serving millions. She highlighted women’s health stakes, noting 99% of plans covered contraception pre-ACA. Critics feared “corporations as people” eroding employee rights, potentially greenlighting discrimination.
Despite this, the ruling stood, influencing subsequent cases like Zubik v. Burwell on nonprofit accommodations.
Lasting Impacts on Business and Law
Post-ruling, HHS extended nonprofit-style accommodations to closely held firms, allowing objectors to notify insurers without direct payments. Hobby Lobby continues thriving, maintaining Sunday closures and faith-aligned policies.
The decision bolstered religious liberty claims in commercial contexts:
- Increased RFRA litigation by family businesses.
- Shaped state-level religious freedom laws (e.g., Indiana’s RFRA controversy).
- Balanced employer rights with employee access via regulatory tweaks.
Economically, it preserved family enterprises from dissolution, upholding the Court’s reluctance to force owners to abandon faith or corporate form. Women’s health advocates pushed back, but data shows contraceptive access remained high via alternatives.
Broader Implications for Religious Freedom in Commerce
Hobby Lobby underscored tensions between federal mandates and private convictions. It affirmed that commerce need not secularize faith; owners can infuse businesses with values without forfeiting legal protections. This precedent aids artisans, bakers, and photographers in conscience-based disputes.
Yet, it sparked debates on equity: Do employee healthcare rights yield to employer theology? The 5-4 split reflects America’s cultural divides on life, liberty, and regulation.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What was the main issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?
The case centered on whether closely held for-profit corporations could claim RFRA exemptions from the ACA’s requirement to provide contraceptive coverage conflicting with owners’ religious beliefs.
Did Hobby Lobby stop covering all birth control?
No, they covered 16 of 20 methods; objections targeted four believed to be abortifacients.
How did the Supreme Court define ‘person’ under RFRA?
It includes closely held corporations, per statutory definitions, allowing them religious exercise protections.
What penalties did Hobby Lobby face for non-compliance?
Approximately $475 million annually or $26 million if dropping coverage entirely.
Has the ruling affected other businesses?
Yes, it enabled similar exemptions for objecting closely held firms, influencing over half of U.S. workers in such companies.
Key Takeaways for Business Owners
For entrepreneurs with faith convictions:
- Document sincere beliefs early.
- Monitor regulatory changes via legal counsel.
- Explore accommodations before litigation.
- Leverage RFRA for federal burdens.
This saga illustrates law’s role in harmonizing commerce, conscience, and public policy.
References
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. — Supreme Court of the United States. 2014-06-30. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/682/
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby — Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. 2014. https://becketfund.org/case/burwell-v-hobby-lobby/
- Supreme Court Inches Corporate Rights Forward in Hobby Lobby — Brennan Center for Justice. 2014-06-30. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-inches-corporate-rights-forward-hobby-lobby
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) — Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona State University. 2014. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-2014
- The Hobby Lobby Decision — Stanford Law School. 2014. https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/the-hobby-lobby-decision/
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Birth Control — Planned Parenthood Action Fund. 2014. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/burwell-v-hobby-lobby
Similar Articles
Read full bio of Sneha Tete
