Important facts
In the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, the department of health and human services enacted regulations which implemented requirements which were passed by the 2010 patient protection and affordable care act (ACA) (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). The act required employers to include preventative care and contraceptives together with screenings for female employers within their health plans and work policies devoid of dost sharing requirements (Marshall, 2016). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) was tasked with the mandate to define the parameters of this law (Brown, 2015).
The HRSA included within the scope of contraceptive drugs to be mandatory for employers to provide for their employees’ emergency contraceptive dugs to which religious groups were vehemently opposed to (Marshall, 2016). The owners of for-profit organizations were vehemently opposed to the provision of contraceptives that went against their religious beliefs and teachings (Brown, 2015). The act provided a mandate that the application of the stipulations had been limited to for profit companies.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The non-profit organizations whose employees and owner’s religious beliefs would be impeded by such a law were allowed to either be exempted from the law or have the option of seeking legal recourse (Kovacs, 2014). Organizations sought refuge under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (Kovacs, 2014). The act prohibits the government from impeding an individual from their exercise of religious beliefs if the government laws and regulations are not the least restrictive laws that could be applied for the circumstances.
Parties
The most renown party to the case was Hobby Lobby which was owned by a wealthy Christian known as David Green. Moreover, Mardel Christian and Educational Supply which was owned by one of Green’s son, Mart was a party (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Furthermore, the Hahn family which owned the Conestoga Wood Specialist was also a plaintiff in the case (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). The case was held against the defendant Burwell, who was representative of the department of Health and Human Sciences as its Secretary.
Legal issues
The main legal issue was the serious violation of religious beliefs together with the burden to the practice of religion placed on the owners of for-profit corporations (Kovacs, 2014). The stipulations in the ACA dictated the mandatory provision of contraception to employees (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). The requirement for provision of the preventive care for women was binding for for-profit companies with exemptions allowed for non-profit companies (Kovacs, 2014).
Moreover, the legal issues of the case encompassed the religious acceptability of the drugs that were recommended by the HRSA as being mandatory for employers to provide them to their employees (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Additionally, the lack of consideration for for-profit companies was also a legal issue in the case (Kovacs, 2014).
Jurisdiction
The presiding judge of the district court ruled in favor of the government and the HHS which led to the appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit given it had the jurisdiction to preside over appeal cases from lower courts (Kovacs, 2014). Moreover, the US Supreme Court had the jurisdiction over the subject matter due to the fact that the case was appealed by the government which had lost to the plaintiff in the Courts of Appeal (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Additionally, the Supreme Court had personal jurisdiction over the matter given the fact that the plaintiffs in the case was the United States department of HHS which is recognized as a government institution and which falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Furthermore, the defendants are US registered companies which are identified as unnatural persons under the law and are therefore subject to US laws.
Legal analysis
The government passed regulations in 2010 which provided for the implementation of the ACA established stipulations requiring for the provision of mandatory preventative care insurance and funding by employers for their employees to be implemented by the HHS (Kovacs, 2014). The Religious Freedom Restoration Acts of 1993 prohibited the government from placing undue burden on individuals exercise of their religious rights and freedom even if the oppression is a result of public regulations (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Moreover, the act provided an exception to the rule being that the government was only allowed to do so if it is in the best interest of the government and that there is no less restrictive law in existence (Kovacs, 2014).
The court determined that the regulations were oppressive on the religious freedoms of the owners of the companies given the fact that it placed undue burden of the religious practices of the company members (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). Additionally, the court determined that the exclusion of for-profit companies from exemption was illegal given the fact that the companies were equally identified under the law and furthermore, the laws were limiting to business practice (Kovacs, 2014). This is given the fact that the law basically required that non-adhering parties close shop therefore presenting undue dilemmas for business owners.
Business action plan
The United States Supreme Court made a landmark ruling therefore making it possible for for-profit companies to stand firm in their religious beliefs where their beliefs and practices class with laws and national policy recommendations (Skelton & Kemp, 2019). By ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby in the court of Appeal, the courts reassured the belief of the system in the religious rights and freedoms of the citizens of the United States. Additionally, the ruling additionally implies the enforcement of religious rights and freedoms and extension of the rights to cover for profit companies (Elias, 2016). As has been revealed by research on the subject, for profit organizations have for decades since the passing of the religious freedom restoration act been held hostage by religiously oppressive laws which they have no other option but to oblige to.
However, during the ruling, the for profit companies were placed under the cover of the provision of the least restrictive law, requiring that given that a law is not the least restrictive version it could be as it pertains to religious freedoms and rights of individuals (Elias, 2016). To this effect therefore, the company shall continue to provide for the preventative care coverage that were previously provided as long as they did not go against the religious beliefs and practices of the founders of the company (Marshall, 2016). Additionally, it is advisable for the company to review all the government stipulations regarding its obligations to the government in addition to the conduct of the organization owners and employees to ensure that they are in line with the religious beliefs of the company owners and employees.
Change the Law/ Precedent
The law which provides protection for the for-profit companies that wish to be exempted from regulations that would breach their religious beliefs and practices is critical for ensuring that there is a friendly business environment for corporations and for-profit companies. However, it is vital for the law to also recognize the risk that organizations and owners may formulate religious leaning sand beliefs that favor their business practices and which they would use to protect themselves against adherence to laws and legal stipulations. To this extent therefore, it is advisable for relevant authority to consider to define the scope of application of the law with regard to the nature of religious beliefs in addition to the viability of corporations for exemption from general rules and regulations.
References
Brown, C. (2015). Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Elias, R. A. (2016). Transforming the Business Corporation into a Religious Association: How Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Made the Religious Values of Fictional Persons Mean More than the Reproductive Rights of Women. NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change , 40 , 1.
Kovacs, K. E. (2014). Hobby Lobby and the Zero-Sum Game. Wash. UL Rev. , 92 , 255.
Marshall, J. A. (2016). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Protecting Religious Freedom in a Diverse Society. NYUJL & Liberty , 10 , 327.
Skelton, C. & Kemp, D. (2019). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 73 U.S. ___ (2014). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/13-354/
