Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Et Al

13/6/2016
BURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES,ETAL.v.HOBBYLOBBYSTORES,INC.,ETAL.|FindLaw
NotaLegalProfessional?Visitourconsumersite
Register | LogIn
CASES&CODES PRACTICEMANAGEMENT JOBS&CAREERS LEGALNEWS

Forms
LawyerMarketing
CorporateCounsel
BLOGS
LAWTECHNOLOGY
LawStudents
JusticeMail
FindLaw Caselaw UnitedStates USSupremeCourt

BURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES,ETAL. v.HOBBYLOBBYSTORES,INC.,ETAL.
BURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMAN
SERVICES,ETAL.v.HOBBYLOBBYSTORES,INC.,ET
SearchFindLaw
Newsletters
0:08/0:09
AL.
Print
330
Fontsize:
Reset
UnitedStatesSupremeCourt
BURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES,ETAL.v.HOBBY
LOBBYSTORES,INC.,ETAL.,(2014)
No.13354
Argued:March25,2014Decided:June30,2014
TheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993(RFRA)prohibitsthe"Government[from]substantially
burden[ing]aperson'sexerciseofreligioneveniftheburdenresultsfromaruleofgeneralapplicability"unless
theGovernment"demonstratesthatapplicationoftheburdentotheperson(1)isinfurtheranceofa
compellinggovernmentalinterestand(2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompelling
governmentalinterest."42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),(b).AsamendedbytheReligiousLandUseand
InstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(RLUIPA),RFRAcovers"anyexerciseofreligion,whetherornot
compelledby,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief."2000cc5(7)(A).
AtissuehereareregulationspromulgatedbytheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(HHS)under
FindLawCareerCenter
Attorney
CorporateCounsel
Academic
JudicialClerk
SummerAssociate
Intern
LawLibrarian
Paralegal
SearchJobs PostaJob|ViewMoreJobs
thePatientProtectionandAffordableCareActof2010(ACA),which,asrelevanthere,requiresspecified
ViewMore
employers'grouphealthplanstofurnish"preventivecareandscreenings"forwomenwithout"anycostsharing
requirements,"42U.S.C.300gg13(a)(4).Congressdidnotspecifywhattypesofpreventivecaremustbe
covereditauthorizedtheHealthResourcesandServicesAdministration,acomponentofHHS,todecide.Ibid.
0:08/0:09
Nonexemptemployersaregenerallyrequiredtoprovidecoverageforthe20contraceptivemethodsapprovedby
theFoodandDrugAdministration,includingthe4thatmayhavetheeffectofpreventinganalreadyfertilized
eggfromdevelopinganyfurtherbyinhibitingitsattachmenttotheuterus.Religiousemployers,suchas
churches,areexemptfromthiscontraceptivemandate.HHShasalsoeffectivelyexemptedreligiousnonprofit
organizationswithreligiousobjectionstoprovidingcoverageforcontraceptiveservices.Underthis
accommodation,theinsuranceissuermustexcludecontraceptivecoveragefromtheemployer'splanand
provideplanparticipantswithseparatepaymentsforcontraceptiveserviceswithoutimposinganycostsharing
requirementsontheemployer,itsinsuranceplan,oritsemployeebeneficiaries.
Inthesecases,theownersofthreecloselyheldforprofitcorporationshavesincereChristianbeliefsthat
lifebeginsatconceptionandthatitwouldviolatetheirreligiontofacilitateaccesstocontraceptivedrugsor
devicesthatoperateafterthatpoint.Inseparateactions,theysuedHHSandotherfederalofficialsandagencies
(collectivelyHHS)underRFRAandtheFreeExerciseClause,seekingtoenjoinapplicationofthecontraceptive
mandateinsofarasitrequiresthemtoprovidehealthcoverageforthefourobjectionablecontraceptives.InNo.
13356,theDistrictCourtdeniedtheHahnsandtheircompanyConestogaWoodSpecialtiesapreliminary
injunction.Affirming,theThirdCircuitheldthataforprofitcorporationcouldnot"engageinreligious
LawFirmGrowthCalculator
Getstartednow!
GrowWithFindLaw.com
exercise"underRFRAortheFirstAmendment,andthatthemandateimposednorequirementsontheHahns
intheirpersonalcapacity.InNo.13354,theGreens,theirchildren,andtheircompaniesHobbyLobbyStores
andMardelwerealsodeniedapreliminaryinjunction,buttheTenthCircuitreversed.ItheldthattheGreens'
businessesare"persons"underRFRA,andthatthecorporationshadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccesson
theirRFRAclaimbecausethecontraceptivemandatesubstantiallyburdenedtheirexerciseofreligionandHHS
hadnotdemonstratedacompellinginterestinenforcingthemandateagainsttheminthealternative,thecourt
heldthatHHShadnotprovedthatthemandatewasthe"leastrestrictivemeans"offurtheringacompelling
SufferanInjury?
Youmaygetcompensated.
Startyourclaimreviewtoday!
eClaimInjury.com
RecentlyInjured?
Auto,personalinjury,atwork,
medmal.Seeifyouqualify!
eClaimInjury.com
governmentalinterest.
Held:Asappliedtocloselyheldcorporations,theHHSregulationsimposingthecontraceptivemandateviolate
RFRA.Pp.1649.
(a)RFRAappliestoregulationsthatgoverntheactivitiesofcloselyheldforprofitcorporationslike
Conestoga,HobbyLobby,andMardel.Pp.1631.
(1)HHSarguesthatthecompaniescannotsuebecausetheyareforprofitcorporations,andthatthe
ownerscannotsuebecausetheregulationsapplyonlytothecompanies,butthatwouldleavemerchantswitha
difficultchoice:giveuptherighttoseekjudicialprotectionoftheirreligiouslibertyorforgothebenefitsof
operatingascorporations.RFRA'stextshowsthatCongressdesignedthestatutetoprovideverybroad
protectionforreligiouslibertyanddidnotintendtoputmerchantstosuchachoice.Itemployedthefamiliar
legalfictionofincludingcorporationswithinRFRA'sdefinitionof"persons,"butthepurposeofextending
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/13354.html
1/31
13/6/2016
rightstocorporationsistoprotecttherightsofpeopleassociatedwiththecorporation,includingshareholders,
officers,andemployees.Protectingthefreeexerciserightsofcloselyheldcorporationsthusprotectsthe
religiouslibertyofthehumanswhoownandcontrolthem.Pp.1619.
(2)HHSandthedissentmakeseveralunpersuasivearguments.Pp.1931.
(i)NothinginRFRAsuggestsacongressionalintenttodepartfromtheDictionaryActdefinitionof
"person,"which"include[s]corporations,...aswellasindividuals."1U.S.C.1.TheCourthasentertained
RFRAandfreeexerciseclaimsbroughtbynonprofitcorporations.See,e.g.,Gonzalesv.OCentroEsprita
BeneficienteUniodoVegetal,546U.S.418.AndHHS'sconcessionthatanonprofitcorporationcanbea
"person"underRFRAeffectivelydispatchesanyargumentthatthetermdoesnotreachforprofitcorporations
noconceivabledefinitionof"person"includesnaturalpersonsandnonprofitcorporations,butnotforprofit
corporations.Pp.1920.
(ii)HHSandthedissentnonethelessarguethatRFRAdoesnotcoverConestoga,HobbyLobby,and
Mardelbecausetheycannot"exercise...religion."Theyoffernopersuasiveexplanationforthisconclusion.
ThecorporateformalonecannotexplainitbecauseRFRAindisputablyprotectsnonprofitcorporations.And
theprofitmakingobjectiveofthecorporationscannotexplainitbecausetheCourthasentertainedthefree
exerciseclaimsofindividualswhowereattemptingtomakeaprofitasretailmerchants.Braunfeldv.Brown,
366U.S.599.Businesspracticescompelledorlimitedbythetenetsofareligiousdoctrinefallcomfortably
withintheunderstandingofthe"exerciseofreligion"thatthisCourtsetoutinEmploymentDiv.,Dept.of
HumanResourcesofOre.v.Smith,494U.S.872,877.Anysuggestionthatforprofitcorporationsare
incapableofexercisingreligionbecausetheirpurposeissimplytomakemoneyfliesinthefaceofmodern
corporatelaw.States,includingthoseinwhichtheplaintiffcorporationswereincorporated,authorize
corporationstopursueanylawfulpurposeorbusiness,includingthepursuitofprofitinconformitywiththe
owners'religiousprinciples.Pp.2025.
(iii)AlsoflawedistheclaimthatRFRAoffersnoprotectionbecauseitonlycodifiedpreSmithFree
ExerciseClauseprecedents,noneofwhichsquarelyrecognizedfreeexerciserightsforforprofitcorporations.
First,nothinginRFRAasoriginallyenactedsuggestedthatitsdefinitionof"exerciseofreligion"wasmeantto
betiedtopreSmithinterpretationsoftheFirstAmendment.Second,ifRFRA'soriginaltextwerenotclear
enough,theRLUIPAamendmentsurelydispelsanydoubtthatCongressintendedtoseparatethedefinitionof
thephrasefromthatinFirstAmendmentcaselaw.Third,thepreSmithcaseofGallagherv.CrownKosher
SuperMarketofMass.,Inc.,366U.S.617,suggests,ifanything,thatforprofitcorporationscanexercise
religion.Finally,theresultswouldbeabsurdifRFRA,alawenactedtoprovideverybroadprotectionfor
religiousliberty,merelyrestoredthisCourt'spreSmithdecisionsinossifiedformandrestrictedRFRAclaimsto
plaintiffswhofellwithinacategoryofplaintiffswhoseclaimstheCourthadrecognizedbeforeSmith.Pp.25
28.
(3)Finally,HHScontendsthatCongresscouldnothavewantedRFRAtoapplytoforprofitcorporations
becauseofthedifficultyofascertainingthe"beliefs"oflarge,publiclytradedcorporations,butHHShasnot
pointedtoanyexampleofapubliclytradedcorporationassertingRFRArights,andnumerouspractical
restraintswouldlikelypreventthatfromoccurring.HHShasalsoprovidednoevidencethatthepurported
problemofdeterminingthesincerityofanassertedreligiousbeliefmovedCongresstoexcludeforprofit
corporationsfromRFRA'sprotection.Thatdisputesamongtheownersofcorporationsmightariseisnota
problemuniquetothiscontext.Statecorporatelawprovidesareadymeansforresolvinganyconflictsby,for
example,dictatinghowacorporationcanestablishitsgoverningstructure.Courtswillturntothatstructure
andtheunderlyingstatelawinresolvingdisputes.Pp.2931.
(b)HHS'scontraceptivemandatesubstantiallyburdenstheexerciseofreligion.Pp.3138.
(1)ItrequirestheHahnsandGreenstoengageinconductthatseriouslyviolatestheirsincerereligious
beliefthatlifebeginsatconception.Iftheyandtheircompaniesrefusetoprovidecontraceptivecoverage,they
facesevereeconomicconsequences:about$475millionperyearforHobbyLobby,$33millionperyearfor
Conestoga,and$15millionperyearforMardel.Andiftheydropcoveragealtogether,theycouldfacepenalties
ofroughly$26millionforHobbyLobby,$1.8millionforConestoga,and$800,000forMardel.P.32.
(2)AmicisupportingHHSarguethatthe$2,000peremployeepenaltyislessthantheaveragecostof
providinginsurance,andthereforethatdroppinginsurancecoverageeliminatesanysubstantialburden
imposedbythemandate.HHShasneverarguedthisandtheCourtdoesnotknowitspositionwithrespectto
theargument.ButeveniftheCourtreachedtheargument,itwouldfinditunpersuasive:Itignoresthefactthat
theplaintiffshavereligiousreasonsforprovidinghealthinsurancecoveragefortheiremployees,anditisfar
fromclearthatthenetcosttothecompaniesofprovidinginsuranceismorethanthecostofdroppingtheir
insuranceplansandpayingtheACApenalty.Pp.3235.
(3)HHSarguesthattheconnectionbetweenwhattheobjectingpartiesmustdoandtheendthattheyfind
tobemorallywrongistooattenuatedbecauseitistheemployeewhowillchoosethecoverageandcontraceptive
methodsheuses.ButRFRA'squestioniswhetherthemandateimposesasubstantialburdenontheobjecting
parties'abilitytoconductbusinessinaccordancewiththeirreligiousbeliefs.ThebeliefoftheHahnsand
Greensimplicatesadifficultandimportantquestionofreligionandmoralphilosophy,namely,the
circumstancesunderwhichitisimmoralforapersontoperformanactthatisinnocentinitselfbutthathasthe
effectofenablingorfacilitatingthecommissionofanimmoralactbyanother.ItisnotfortheCourttosaythat
thereligiousbeliefsoftheplaintiffsaremistakenorunreasonable.Infact,thisCourtconsideredandrejecteda
nearlyidenticalargumentinThomasv.ReviewBd.ofIndianaEmploymentSecurityDiv.,450U.S.707.The
Court's"narrowfunction...istodetermine"whethertheplaintiffs'assertedreligiousbeliefreflects"anhonest
conviction,"id.,at716,andthereisnodisputeherethatitdoes.Tiltonv.Richardson,403U.S.672,689and
BoardofEd.ofCentralSchoolDist.No.1v.Allen,392U.S.236,248249,distinguished.Pp.3538.
(c)TheCourtassumesthattheinterestinguaranteeingcostfreeaccesstothefourchallengedcontraceptive
methodsisacompellinggovernmentalinterest,buttheGovernmenthasfailedtoshowthatthecontraceptive
2/31
13/6/2016
mandateistheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatinterest.Pp.3849.
(1)TheCourtassumesthattheinterestinguaranteeingcostfreeaccesstothefourchallenged
contraceptivemethodsiscompellingwithinthemeaningofRFRA.Pp.3940.
(2)TheGovernmenthasfailedtosatisfyRFRA'sleastrestrictivemeansstandard.HHShasnotshown
thatitlacksothermeansofachievingitsdesiredgoalwithoutimposingasubstantialburdenontheexerciseof
religion.TheGovernmentcould,e.g.,assumethecostofprovidingthefourcontraceptivestowomenunableto
obtaincoverageduetotheiremployers'religiousobjections.OritcouldextendtheaccommodationthatHHS
hasalreadyestablishedforreligiousnonprofitorganizationstononprofitemployerswithreligiousobjections
tothecontraceptivemandate.Thataccommodationdoesnotimpingeontheplaintiffs'religiousbeliefsthat
providinginsurancecoverageforthecontraceptivesatissuehereviolatestheirreligionanditstillservesHHS's
statedinterests.Pp.4045.
(3)Thisdecisionconcernsonlythecontraceptivemandateandshouldnotbeunderstoodtoholdthatall
insurancecoveragemandates,e.g.,forvaccinationsorbloodtransfusions,mustnecessarilyfalliftheyconflict
withanemployer'sreligiousbeliefs.Nordoesitprovideashieldforemployerswhomightcloakillegal
discriminationasareligiouspractice.UnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.252,whichupheldthepaymentofSocial
Securitytaxesdespiteanemployer'sreligiousobjection,isnotanalogous.Itturnedprimarilyonthespecial
problemsassociatedwithanationalsystemoftaxationandifLeewereaRFRAcase,thefundamentalpoint
wouldstillbethatthereisnolessrestrictivealternativetothecategoricalrequirementtopaytaxes.Here,there
isanalternativetothecontraceptivemandate.Pp.4549.
No.13354,723F.3d1114,affirmedNo.13356,724F.3d377,reversedandremanded.
ALITO,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichROBERTS,C.J.,andSCALIA,KENNEDY,andTHOMAS,JJ.,
joined.KENNEDY,J.,filedaconcurringopinion.GINSBURG,J.,filedadissentingopinion,inwhichSOTOMAYOR,
J.,joined,andinwhichBREYER andKAGAN,JJ.,joinedastoallbutPartIIIC1.BREYER andKAGAN,JJ.,fileda
dissentingopinion.
OpinionoftheCourt
573U.S.____(2014)
NOTICE: ThisopinionissubjecttoformalrevisionbeforepublicationinthepreliminaryprintoftheUnited
StatesReports. ReadersarerequestedtonotifytheReporterofDecisions,SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,
Washington,D.C.20543,ofanytypographicalorotherformalerrors,inorderthatcorrectionsmaybemade
beforethepreliminaryprintgoestopress.
Nos.13354and13356
SYLVIABURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES, ETAL.,PETITIONERS13354v.
HOBBYLOBBYSTORES,INC.,ETAL.CONESTOGAWOODSPECIALTIESCORPORATIONETAL.,
PETITIONERS13356v.SYLVIABURWELL,SECRETARYOFHEALTHANDHUMANSERVICES, ETAL.
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURT
OFAPPEALSFORTHETENTHCIRCUIT
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHETHIRDCIRCUIT
[June30,2014]
JUSTICEALITOdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.
WemustdecideinthesecaseswhethertheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993(RFRA),107Stat.
1488,42U.S.C.2000bbetseq.,permitstheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(HHS)
todemandthatthreecloselyheldcorporationsprovidehealthinsurancecoverageformethodsofcontraception
thatviolatethesincerelyheldreligiousbeliefsofthecompanies'owners.Weholdthattheregulationsthat
imposethisobligationviolateRFRA,whichprohibitstheFederalGovernmentfromtakinganyactionthat
substantiallyburdenstheexerciseofreligionunlessthatactionconstitutestheleastrestrictivemeansofserving
acompellinggovernmentinterest.
InholdingthattheHHSmandateisunlawful,werejectHHS'sargumentthattheownersofthecompanies
forfeitedallRFRAprotectionwhentheydecidedtoorganizetheirbusinessesascorporationsratherthansole
proprietorshipsorgeneralpartnerships.TheplaintermsofRFRAmakeitperfectlyclearthatCongressdidnot
discriminateinthiswayagainstmenandwomenwhowishtoruntheirbusinessesasforprofitcorporationsin
themannerrequiredbytheirreligiousbeliefs.
SinceRFRAappliesinthesecases,wemustdecidewhetherthechallengedHHSregulationssubstantially
burdentheexerciseofreligion,andweholdthattheydo.Theownersofthebusinesseshavereligious
objectionstoabortion,andaccordingtotheirreligiousbeliefsthefourcontraceptivemethodsatissueare
abortifacients.IftheownerscomplywiththeHHSmandate,theybelievetheywillbefacilitatingabortions,and
iftheydonotcomply,theywillpayaveryheavypriceasmuchas$1.3millionperday,orabout$475million
peryear,inthecaseofoneofthecompanies.Iftheseconsequencesdonotamounttoasubstantialburden,itis
hardtoseewhatwould.
UnderRFRA,aGovernmentactionthatimposesasubstantialburdenonreligiousexercisemustservea
compellinggovernmentinterest,andweassumethattheHHSregulationssatisfythisrequirement.Butinorder
fortheHHSmandatetobesustained,itmustalsoconstitutetheleastrestrictivemeansofservingthatinterest,
andthemandateplainlyfailsthattest.ThereareotherwaysinwhichCongressorHHScouldequallyensure
thateverywomanhascostfreeaccesstotheparticularcontraceptivesatissuehereand,indeed,toallFDA
approvedcontraceptives.
3/31
13/6/2016
Infact,HHShasalreadydevisedandimplementedasystemthatseekstorespectthereligiouslibertyof
religiousnonprofitcorporationswhileensuringthattheemployeesoftheseentitieshavepreciselythesame
accesstoallFDAapprovedcontraceptivesasemployeesofcompanieswhoseownershavenoreligious
objectionstoprovidingsuchcoverage.Theemployeesofthesereligiousnonprofitcorporationsstillhaveaccess
toinsurancecoveragewithoutcostsharingforallFDAapprovedcontraceptivesandaccordingtoHHS,this
systemimposesnoneteconomicburdenontheinsurancecompaniesthatarerequiredtoprovideorsecurethe
coverage.
AlthoughHHShasmadethissystemavailabletoreligiousnonprofitsthathavereligiousobjectionstothe
contraceptivemandate,HHShasprovidednoreasonwhythesamesystemcannotbemadeavailablewhenthe
ownersofforprofitcorporationshavesimilarreligiousobjections.Wethereforeconcludethatthissystem
constitutesanalternativethatachievesalloftheGovernment'saimswhileprovidinggreaterrespectfor
religiousliberty.AndunderRFRA,thatconclusionmeansthatenforcementoftheHHScontraceptivemandate
againsttheobjectingpartiesinthesecasesisunlawful.
Asthisdescriptionofourreasoningshows,ourholdingisveryspecific.Wedonothold,astheprincipal
dissentalleges,thatforprofitcorporationsandothercommercialenterprisescan"optoutofanylaw(saving
onlytaxlaws)theyjudgeincompatiblewiththeirsincerelyheldreligiousbeliefs."Post,at1(opinionof
GINSBURG,J.).Nordowehold,asthedissentimplies,thatsuchcorporationshavefreereintotakestepsthat
impose"disadvantages...onothers"orthatrequire"thegeneralpublic[to]pickupthetab."Post,at12.And
wecertainlydonotholdorsuggestthat"RFRAdemandsaccommodationofaforprofitcorporation'sreligious
beliefsnomattertheimpactthataccommodationmayhaveon...thousandsofwomenemployedbyHobby
Lobby."Post,at2. 1TheeffectoftheHHScreatedaccommodationonthewomenemployedbyHobbyLobbyand
theothercompaniesinvolvedinthesecaseswouldbepreciselyzero.Underthataccommodation,thesewomen
wouldstillbeentitledtoallFDAapprovedcontraceptiveswithoutcostsharing.
I
A
CongressenactedRFRAin1993inordertoprovideverybroadprotectionforreligiousliberty.RFRA's
enactmentcamethreeyearsafterthisCourt'sdecisioninEmploymentDiv.,Dept.ofHumanResourcesofOre.
v.Smith,494U.S.872(1990),whichlargelyrepudiatedthemethodofanalyzingfreeexerciseclaimsthathad
beenusedincaseslikeSherbertv.Verner,374U.S.398(1963),andWisconsinv.Yoder,406U.S.205(1972).
IndeterminingwhetherchallengedgovernmentactionsviolatedtheFreeExerciseClauseoftheFirst
Amendment,thosedecisionsusedabalancingtestthattookintoaccountwhetherthechallengedaction
imposedasubstantialburdenonthepracticeofreligion,andifitdid,whetheritwasneededtoservea
compellinggovernmentinterest.Applyingthistest,theCourtheldinSherbertthatanemployeewhowasfired
forrefusingtoworkonherSabbathcouldnotbedeniedunemploymentbenefits.374U.S.,at408409.Andin
Yoder,theCourtheldthatAmishchildrencouldnotberequiredtocomplywithastatelawdemandingthatthey
remaininschooluntiltheageof16eventhoughtheirreligionrequiredthemtofocusonuniquelyAmishvalues
andbeliefsduringtheirformativeadolescentyears.406U.S.,at210211,234236.
InSmith,however,theCourtrejected"thebalancingtestsetforthinSherbert."494U.S.,at883.Smith
concernedtwomembersoftheNativeAmericanChurchwhowerefiredforingestingpeyoteforsacramental
purposes.Whentheysoughtunemploymentbenefits,theStateofOregonrejectedtheirclaimsontheground
thatconsumptionofpeyotewasacrime,buttheOregonSupremeCourt,applyingtheSherberttest,heldthatthe
denialofbenefitsviolatedtheFreeExerciseClause.494U.S.,at875.
ThisCourtthenreversed,observingthatuseoftheSherberttestwheneverapersonobjectedonreligious
groundstotheenforcementofagenerallyapplicablelaw"wouldopentheprospectofconstitutionallyrequired
religiousexemptionsfromcivicobligationsofalmosteveryconceivablekind."494U.S.,at888.TheCourt
thereforeheldthat,undertheFirstAmendment,"neutral,generallyapplicablelawsmaybeappliedtoreligious
practicesevenwhennotsupportedbyacompellinggovernmentalinterest."CityofBoernev.Flores,521U.S.
507,514(1997).
CongressrespondedtoSmithbyenactingRFRA."[L]aws[thatare]'neutral'towardreligion,"Congress
found,"mayburdenreligiousexerciseassurelyaslawsintendedtointerferewithreligiousexercise."42U.S.C.
2000bb(a)(2)seealso2000bb(a)(4).Inordertoensurebroadprotectionforreligiousliberty,RFRAprovides
that"Governmentshallnotsubstantiallyburdenaperson'sexerciseofreligioneveniftheburdenresultsfroma
ruleofgeneralapplicability."2000bb1(a). 2IftheGovernmentsubstantiallyburdensaperson'sexerciseof
religion,undertheActthatpersonisentitledtoanexemptionfromtheruleunlesstheGovernment
"demonstratesthatapplicationoftheburdentotheperson(1)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmental
interestand(2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmentalinterest."2000bb
1(b). 3
Asenactedin1993,RFRAappliedtoboththeFederalGovernmentandtheStates,buttheconstitutional
authorityinvokedforregulatingfederalandstateagenciesdiffered.Asappliedtoafederalagency,RFRAis
basedontheenumeratedpowerthatsupportstheparticularagency'swork, 4butinattemptingtoregulatethe
Statesandtheirsubdivisions,CongressreliedonitspowerunderSection5oftheFourteenthAmendmentto
enforcetheFirstAmendment.521U.S.,at516517.InCityofBoerne,however,weheldthatCongresshad
oversteppeditsSection5authoritybecause"[t]hestringenttestRFRAdemands""farexceed[ed]anypatternor
practiceofunconstitutionalconductundertheFreeExerciseClauseasinterpretedinSmith."Id.,at533534.
Seealsoid.,at532.
FollowingourdecisioninCityofBoerne,CongresspassedtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalized
PersonsActof2000(RLUIPA),114Stat.803,42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.Thatstatute,enactedunder
Congress'sCommerceandSpendingClausepowers,imposesthesamegeneraltestasRFRAbutonamore
limitedcategoryofgovernmentalactions.SeeCutterv.Wilkinson,544U.S.709,715716(2005).And,whatis
mostrelevantforpresentpurposes,RLUIPAamendedRFRA'sdefinitionofthe"exerciseofreligion."See
4/31
13/6/2016
2000bb2(4)(importingRLUIPAdefinition).BeforeRLUIPA,RFRA'sdefinitionmadereferencetotheFirst
Amendment.See2000bb2(4)(1994ed.)(defining"exerciseofreligion"as"theexerciseofreligionunderthe
FirstAmendment").InRLUIPA,inanobviousefforttoeffectacompleteseparationfromFirstAmendmentcase
law,CongressdeletedthereferencetotheFirstAmendmentanddefinedthe"exerciseofreligion"toinclude
"anyexerciseofreligion,whetherornotcompelledby,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief."2000cc5(7)
(A).AndCongressmandatedthatthisconcept"beconstruedinfavorofabroadprotectionofreligiousexercise,
tothemaximumextentpermittedbythetermsofthischapterandtheConstitution."2000cc3(g). 5
B
AtissueinthesecasesareHHSregulationspromulgatedunderthePatientProtectionandAffordableCare
Actof2010(ACA),124Stat.119.ACAgenerallyrequiresemployerswith50ormorefulltimeemployeestooffer
"agrouphealthplanorgrouphealthinsurancecoverage"thatprovides"minimumessentialcoverage."26
U.S.C.5000A(f)(2)4980H(a),(c)(2).Anycoveredemployerthatdoesnotprovidesuchcoveragemustpay
asubstantialprice.Specifically,ifacoveredemployerprovidesgrouphealthinsurancebutitsplanfailsto
complywithACA'sgrouphealthplanrequirements,theemployermayberequiredtopay$100perdayforeach
affected"individual."4980D(a)(b).Andiftheemployerdecidestostopprovidinghealthinsurance
altogetherandatleastonefulltimeemployeeenrollsinahealthplanandqualifiesforasubsidyononeofthe
governmentrunACAexchanges,theemployermustpay$2,000peryearforeachofitsfulltimeemployees.
4980H(a),(c)(1).
Unlessanexceptionapplies,ACArequiresanemployer'sgrouphealthplanorgrouphealthinsurance
coveragetofurnish"preventivecareandscreenings"forwomenwithout"anycostsharingrequirements."42
U.S.C.300gg13(a)(4).Congressitself,however,didnotspecifywhattypesofpreventivecaremustbe
covered.Instead,CongressauthorizedtheHealthResourcesandServicesAdministration(HRSA),a
componentofHHS,tomakethatimportantandsensitivedecision.Ibid.TheHRSAinturnconsultedthe
InstituteofMedicine,anonprofitgroupofvolunteeradvisers,indeterminingwhichpreventiveservicesto
require.See77Fed.Reg.87258726(2012).
InAugust2011,basedontheInstitute'srecommendations,theHRSApromulgatedtheWomen'sPreventive
ServicesGuidelines.Seeid.,at87258726,andn.1onlineathttp://hrsa.gov/womensguidelines(allInternet
materialsasvisitedJune26,2014,andavailableinClerkofCourt'scasefile).TheGuidelinesprovidethat
nonexemptemployersaregenerallyrequiredtoprovide"coverage,withoutcostsharing"for"[a]llFoodand
DrugAdministration[(FDA)]approvedcontraceptivemethods,sterilizationprocedures,andpatienteducation
andcounseling."77Fed.Reg.8725(internalquotationmarksomitted).Althoughmanyoftherequired,FDA
approvedmethodsofcontraceptionworkbypreventingthefertilizationofanegg,fourofthosemethods(those
specificallyatissueinthesecases)mayhavetheeffectofpreventinganalreadyfertilizedeggfromdeveloping
anyfurtherbyinhibitingitsattachmenttotheuterus.SeeBriefforHHSinNo.13354,pp.910,n.46FDA,
BirthControl:MedicinestoHelpYou. 7
HHSalsoauthorizedtheHRSAtoestablishexemptionsfromthecontraceptivemandatefor"religious
employers."45CFR147.131(a).Thatcategoryencompasses"churches,theirintegratedauxiliaries,and
conventionsorassociationsofchurches,"aswellas"theexclusivelyreligiousactivitiesofanyreligiousorder."
Seeibid(citing26U.S.C.6033(a)(3)(A)(i),(iii)).InitsGuidelines,HRSAexemptedtheseorganizations
fromtherequirementtocovercontraceptiveservices.Seehttp://hrsa.gov/womensguidelines.
Inaddition,HHShaseffectivelyexemptedcertainreligiousnonprofitorganizations,describedunderHHS
regulationsas"eligibleorganizations,"fromthecontraceptivemandate.See45CFR147.131(b)78Fed.Reg.
39874(2013).An"eligibleorganization"meansanonprofitorganizationthat"holdsitselfoutasareligious
organization"and"opposesprovidingcoverageforsomeorallofanycontraceptiveservicesrequiredtobe
covered...onaccountofreligiousobjections."45CFR147.131(b).Toqualifyforthisaccommodation,an
employermustcertifythatitissuchanorganization.147.131(b)(4).Whenagrouphealthinsuranceissuer
receivesnoticethatoneofitsclientshasinvokedthisprovision,theissuermustthenexcludecontraceptive
coveragefromtheemployer'splanandprovideseparatepaymentsforcontraceptiveservicesforplan
participantswithoutimposinganycostsharingrequirementsontheeligibleorganization,itsinsuranceplan,
oritsemployeebeneficiaries.147.131(c). 8Althoughthisprocedurerequirestheissuertobearthecostofthese
services,HHShasdeterminedthatthisobligationwillnotimposeanynetexpenseonissuersbecauseitscost
willbelessthanorequaltothecostsavingsresultingfromtheservices.78Fed.Reg.39877. 9
Inadditiontotheseexemptionsforreligiousorganizations,ACAexemptsagreatmanyemployersfrommost
ofitscoveragerequirements.Employersproviding"grandfatheredhealthplans"thosethatexistedpriorto
March23,2010,andthathavenotmadespecifiedchangesafterthatdateneednotcomplywithmanyofthe
Act'srequirements,includingthecontraceptivemandate.42U.S.C.18011(a),(e).Andemployerswithfewer
than50employeesarenotrequiredtoprovidehealthinsuranceatall.26U.S.C.4980H(c)(2).
Alltold,thecontraceptivemandate"presentlydoesnotapplytotensofmillionsofpeople."723F.3d1114,
1143(CA102013).Thisisattributable,inlargepart,tograndfatheredhealthplans:Overonethirdofthe149
millionnonelderlypeopleinAmericawithemployersponsoredhealthplanswereenrolledingrandfathered
plansin2013.BriefforHHSinNo.13354,at53KaiserFamilyFoundation&HealthResearch&Educational
Trust,EmployerHealthBenefits,2013AnnualSurvey43,221. 10Thecountforemployeesworkingforfirmsthat
donothavetoprovideinsuranceatallbecausetheyemployfewerthan50employeesis34millionworkers.See
TheWhitehouse,HealthReformforSmallBusinesses:TheAffordableCareActIncreasesChoiceandSaving
MoneyforSmallBusinesses1. 11
II
A
NormanandElizabethHahnandtheirthreesonsaredevoutmembersoftheMennoniteChurch,aChristian
denomination.TheMennoniteChurchopposesabortionandbelievesthat"[t]hefetusinitsearlieststages...
5/31
13/6/2016
shareshumanitywiththosewhoconceivedit."12
Fiftyyearsago,NormanHahnstartedawoodworkingbusinessinhisgarage,andsincethen,this
company,ConestogaWoodSpecialties,hasgrownandnowhas950employees.Conestogaisorganizedunder
Pennsylvanialawasaforprofitcorporation.TheHahnsexercisesoleownershipofthecloselyheldbusiness
theycontrolitsboardofdirectorsandholdallofitsvotingshares.OneoftheHahnsonsservesasthepresident
andCEO.
TheHahnsbelievethattheyarerequiredtoruntheirbusiness"inaccordancewiththeirreligiousbeliefsand
moralprinciples."917F.Supp.2d394,402(EDPa.2013).Tothatend,thecompany'smission,astheyseeit,is
to"operateinaprofessionalenvironmentfoundeduponthehighestethical,moral,andChristianprinciples."
Ibid.(internalquotationmarksomitted).Thecompany's"VisionandValuesStatements"affirmsthat
Conestogaendeavorsto"ensur[e]areasonableprofitin[a]mannerthatreflects[theHahns']Christian
heritage."App.inNo.13356,p.94(complaint).
AsexplainedinConestoga'sboardadopted"StatementontheSanctityofHumanLife,"theHahnsbelieve
that"humanlifebeginsatconception."724F.3d377,382,andn.5(CA32013)(internalquotationmarks
omitted).Itistherefore"against[their]moralconvictiontobeinvolvedintheterminationofhumanlife"after
conception,whichtheybelieveisa"sinagainstGodtowhichtheyareheldaccountable."Ibid.(internal
quotationmarksomitted).TheHahnshaveaccordinglyexcludedfromthegrouphealthinsuranceplanthey
offertotheiremployeescertaincontraceptivemethodsthattheyconsidertobeabortifacients.Id.,at382.
TheHahnsandConestogasuedHHSandotherfederalofficialsandagenciesunderRFRAandtheFree
ExerciseClauseoftheFirstAmendment,seekingtoenjoinapplicationofACA'scontraceptivemandateinsofar
asitrequiresthemtoprovidehealthinsurancecoverageforfourFDAapprovedcontraceptivesthatmayoperate
afterthefertilizationofanegg. 13Theseincludetwoformsofemergencycontraceptioncommonlycalled
"morningafter"pillsandtwotypesofintrauterinedevices. 14
Inopposingtherequirementtoprovidecoverageforthecontraceptivestowhichtheyobject,theHahns
arguedthat"itisimmoralandsinfulfor[them]tointentionallyparticipatein,payfor,facilitate,orotherwise
supportthesedrugs."Ibid.TheDistrictCourtdeniedapreliminaryinjunction,see917F.Supp.2d,at419,and
theThirdCircuitaffirmedinadividedopinion,holdingthat"forprofit,secularcorporationscannotengagein
religiousexercise"withinthemeaningofRFRAortheFirstAmendment.724F.3d,at381.TheThirdCircuit
alsorejectedtheclaimsbroughtbytheHahnsthemselvesbecauseitconcludedthattheHHS"[m]andatedoes
notimposeanyrequirementsontheHahns"intheirpersonalcapacity.Id.,at389.
B
DavidandBarbaraGreenandtheirthreechildrenareChristianswhoownandoperatetwofamily
businesses.Fortyfiveyearsago,DavidGreenstartedanartsandcraftsstorethathasgrownintoanationwide
chaincalledHobbyLobby.Therearenow500HobbyLobbystores,andthecompanyhasmorethan13,000
employees.723F.3d,at1122.HobbyLobbyisorganizedasaforprofitcorporationunderOklahomalaw.
OneofDavid'ssonsstartedanaffiliatedbusiness,Mardel,whichoperates35Christianbookstoresand
employscloseto400people.Ibid.MardelisalsoorganizedasaforprofitcorporationunderOklahomalaw.
Thoughthesetwobusinesseshaveexpandedovertheyears,theyremaincloselyheld,andDavid,Barbara,
andtheirchildrenretainexclusivecontrolofbothcompanies.Ibid.DavidservesastheCEOofHobbyLobby,
andhisthreechildrenserveasthepresident,vicepresident,andviceCEO.SeeBriefforRespondentsinNo.13
354,p.8. 15
HobbyLobby'sstatementofpurposecommitstheGreensto"[h]onoringtheLordinall[they]dobyoperating
thecompanyinamannerconsistentwithBiblicalprinciples."App.inNo.13354,pp.134135(complaint).
Eachfamilymemberhassignedapledgetorunthebusinessesinaccordancewiththefamily'sreligiousbeliefs
andtousethefamilyassetstosupportChristianministries.723F.3d,at1122.Inaccordancewiththose
commitments,HobbyLobbyandMardelstorescloseonSundays,eventhoughtheGreenscalculatethatthey
losemillionsinsalesannuallybydoingso.Id.,at1122App.inNo.13354,at136137.Thebusinessesrefuse
toengageinprofitabletransactionsthatfacilitateorpromotealcoholusetheycontributeprofitstoChristian
missionariesandministriesandtheybuyhundredsoffullpagenewspaperadsinvitingpeopleto"knowJesus
asLordandSavior."Ibid.(internalquotationmarksomitted).
LiketheHahns,theGreensbelievethatlifebeginsatconceptionandthatitwouldviolatetheirreligionto
facilitateaccesstocontraceptivedrugsordevicesthatoperateafterthatpoint.723F.3d,at1122.They
specificallyobjecttothesamefourcontraceptivemethodsastheHahnsand,liketheHahns,theyhaveno
objectiontotheother16FDAapprovedmethodsofbirthcontrol.Id.,at1125.Althoughtheirgrouphealth
insuranceplanpredatestheenactmentofACA,itisnotagrandfatheredplanbecauseHobbyLobbyelectednot
toretaingrandfatheredstatusbeforethecontraceptivemandatewasproposed.Id.,at1124.
TheGreens,HobbyLobby,andMardelsuedHHSandotherfederalagenciesandofficialstochallengethe
contraceptivemandateunderRFRAandtheFreeExerciseClause. 16TheDistrictCourtdeniedapreliminary
injunction,see870F.Supp.2d1278(WDOkla.2012),andtheplaintiffsappealed,movingforinitialenbanc
consideration.TheTenthCircuitgrantedthatmotionandreversedinadividedopinion.Contrarytothe
conclusionoftheThirdCircuit,theTenthCircuitheldthattheGreens'twoforprofitbusinessesare"persons"
withinthemeaningofRFRAandthereforemaybringsuitunderthatlaw.
ThecourtthenheldthatthecorporationshadestablishedalikelihoodofsuccessontheirRFRAclaim.723
F.3d,at11401147.Thecourtconcludedthatthecontraceptivemandatesubstantiallyburdenedtheexerciseof
religionbyrequiringthecompaniestochoosebetween"compromis[ing]theirreligiousbeliefs"andpayinga
heavyfeeeither"closeto$475millionmoreintaxeseveryyear"iftheysimplyrefusedtoprovidecoveragefor
thecontraceptivesatissue,or"roughly$26million"annuallyifthey"drop[ped]healthinsurancebenefitsfor
allemployees."Id.,at1141.
6/31
13/6/2016
ThecourtnextheldthatHHShadfailedtodemonstrateacompellinginterestinenforcingthemandate
againsttheGreens'businessesand,inthealternative,thatHHShadfailedtoprovethatenforcementofthe
mandatewasthe"leastrestrictivemeans"offurtheringtheGovernment'sassertedinterests.Id.,at11431144
(emphasisdeletedinternalquotationmarksomitted).Afterconcludingthatthecompanieshad"demonstrated
irreparableharm,"thecourtreversedandremandedfortheDistrictCourttoconsidertheremainingfactorsof
thepreliminaryinjunctiontest.Id.,at1147. 17
Wegrantedcertiorari.571U.S.___(2013).
III
A
RFRAprohibitsthe"Government[from]substantiallyburden[ing]aperson'sexerciseofreligionevenifthe
burdenresultsfromaruleofgeneralapplicability"unlesstheGovernment"demonstratesthatapplicationofthe
burdentotheperson(1)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmentalinterestand(2)istheleastrestrictive
meansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmentalinterest."42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),(b)(emphasisadded).
Thefirstquestionthatwemustaddressiswhetherthisprovisionappliestoregulationsthatgovernthe
activitiesofforprofitcorporationslikeHobbyLobby,Conestoga,andMardel.
HHScontendsthatneitherthesecompaniesnortheirownerscanevenbeheardunderRFRA.Accordingto
HHS,thecompaniescannotsuebecausetheyseektomakeaprofitfortheirowners,andtheownerscannotbe
heardbecausetheregulations,atleastasaformalmatter,applyonlytothecompaniesandnottotheownersas
individuals.HHS'sargumentwouldhavedramaticconsequences.
ConsiderthisCourt'sdecisioninBraunfeldv.Brown,366U.S.599(1961)(pluralityopinion).Inthatcase,
fiveOrthodoxJewishmerchantswhoransmallretailbusinessesinPhiladelphiachallengedaPennsylvania
SundayclosinglawasaviolationoftheFreeExerciseClause.Becauseoftheirfaith,thesemerchantsclosed
theirshopsonSaturday,andtheyarguedthatrequiringthemtoremainshutonSundaythreatenedthemwith
financialruin.TheCourtentertainedtheirclaim(althoughitruledagainstthemonthemerits),andifasimilar
claimwereraisedtodayunderRFRAagainstajurisdictionstillsubjecttotheAct(forexample,theDistrictof
Columbia,see42U.S.C.2000bb2(2)),themerchantswouldbeentitledtobeheard.AccordingtoHHS,
however,ifthesemerchantschosetoincorporatetheirbusinesseswithoutinanywaychangingthesizeor
natureoftheirbusinessestheywouldforfeitallRFRA(andfreeexercise)rights.HHSwouldputthese
merchantstoadifficultchoice:eithergiveuptherighttoseekjudicialprotectionoftheirreligiouslibertyor
forgothebenefits,availabletotheircompetitors,ofoperatingascorporations.
Aswehaveseen,RFRAwasdesignedtoprovideverybroadprotectionforreligiousliberty.Byenacting
RFRA,CongresswentfarbeyondwhatthisCourthasheldisconstitutionallyrequired. 18Isthereanyreasonto
thinkthattheCongressthatenactedsuchsweepingprotectionputsmallbusinessownerstothechoicethat
HHSsuggests?AnexaminationofRFRA'stext,towhichweturninthenextpartofthisopinion,revealsthat
Congressdidnosuchthing.
Aswewillshow,CongressprovidedprotectionforpeopleliketheHahnsandGreensbyemployingafamiliar
legalfiction:ItincludedcorporationswithinRFRA'sdefinitionof"persons."Butitisimportanttokeepinmind
thatthepurposeofthisfictionistoprovideprotectionforhumanbeings.Acorporationissimplyaformof
organizationusedbyhumanbeingstoachievedesiredends.Anestablishedbodyoflawspecifiestherightsand
obligationsofthepeople(includingshareholders,officers,andemployees)whoareassociatedwitha
corporationinonewayoranother.Whenrights,whetherconstitutionalorstatutory,areextendedto
corporations,thepurposeistoprotecttherightsofthesepeople.Forexample,extendingFourthAmendment
protectiontocorporationsprotectstheprivacyinterestsofemployeesandothersassociatedwiththecompany.
Protectingcorporationsfromgovernmentseizureoftheirpropertywithoutjustcompensationprotectsallthose
whohaveastakeinthecorporations'financialwellbeing.Andprotectingthefreeexerciserightsof
corporationslikeHobbyLobby,Conestoga,andMardelprotectsthereligiouslibertyofthehumanswhoown
andcontrolthosecompanies.
InholdingthatConestoga,asa"secular,forprofitcorporation,"lacksRFRAprotection,theThirdCircuit
wroteasfollows:
"Generalbusinesscorporationsdonot,separateandapartfromtheactionsorbeliefsystemsoftheir
individualownersoremployees,exercisereligion.Theydonotpray,worship,observesacramentsor
takeotherreligiouslymotivatedactionsseparateandapartfromtheintentionanddirectionoftheir
individualactors."724F.3d,at385(emphasisadded).
Allofthisistruebutquitebesidethepoint.Corporations,"separateandapartfrom"thehumanbeingswho
own,run,andareemployedbythem,cannotdoanythingatall.
B
1
Aswenotedabove,RFRAappliesto"aperson's"exerciseofreligion,42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),(b),and
RFRAitselfdoesnotdefinetheterm"person."WethereforelooktotheDictionaryAct,whichwemustconsult"
[i]ndeterminingthemeaningofanyActofCongress,unlessthecontextindicatesotherwise."1U.S.C.1.
UndertheDictionaryAct,"thewor[d]'person'...include[s]corporations,companies,associations,firms,
partnerships,societies,andjointstockcompanies,aswellasindividuals."Ibid.seeFCCv.AT&TInc.,562
7/31
13/6/2016
U.S.___,___(2011)(slipop.,at6)("Wehavenodoubtthat'person,'inalegalsetting,oftenrefersto
artificialentities.TheDictionaryActmakesthatclear").Thus,unlessthereissomethingabouttheRFRA
contextthat"indicatesotherwise,"theDictionaryActprovidesaquick,clear,andaffirmativeanswertothe
questionwhetherthecompaniesinvolvedinthesecasesmaybeheard.
WeseenothinginRFRAthatsuggestsacongressionalintenttodepartfromtheDictionaryActdefinition,
andHHSmakeslittleefforttoargueotherwise.WehaveentertainedRFRAandfreeexerciseclaimsbroughtby
nonprofitcorporations,seeGonzalesv.OCentroEspritaBeneficienteUniodoVegetal,546U.S.418(2006)
(RFRA)HosannaTaborEvangelicalLutheranChurchandSchoolv.EEOC,565U.S.___(2012)(Free
Exercise)ChurchoftheLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.Hialeah,508U.S.520(1993)(FreeExercise),andHHS
concedesthatanonprofitcorporationcanbea"person"withinthemeaningofRFRA.SeeBriefforHHSinNo.
13354,at17ReplyBriefinNo.13354,at78. 19
Thisconcessioneffectivelydispatchesanyargumentthattheterm"person"asusedinRFRAdoesnotreach
thecloselyheldcorporationsinvolvedinthesecases.Noknownunderstandingoftheterm"person"includes
somebutnotallcorporations.Theterm"person"sometimesencompassesartificialpersons(astheDictionary
Actinstructs),anditsometimesislimitedtonaturalpersons.Butnoconceivabledefinitionofthetermincludes
naturalpersonsandnonprofitcorporations,butnotforprofitcorporations. 20Cf.Clarkv.Martinez,543U.S.
371,378(2005)("Togiveth[e]samewordsadifferentmeaningforeachcategorywouldbetoinventastatute
ratherthaninterpretone").
2
TheprincipalargumentadvancedbyHHSandtheprincipaldissentregardingRFRAprotectionforHobby
Lobby,Conestoga,andMardelfocusesnotonthestatutoryterm"person,"butonthephrase"exerciseof
religion."AccordingtoHHSandthedissent,thesecorporationsarenotprotectedbyRFRAbecausetheycannot
exercisereligion.NeitherHHSnorthedissent,however,providesanypersuasiveexplanationforthis
conclusion.
Isitbecauseofthecorporateform?Thecorporateformalonecannotprovidetheexplanationbecause,aswe
havepointedout,HHSconcedesthatnonprofitcorporationscanbeprotectedbyRFRA.Thedissentsuggests
thatnonprofitcorporationsarespecialbecausefurtheringtheirreligious"autonomy...oftenfurthers
individualreligiousfreedomaswell."Post,at15(quotingCorporationofPresidingBishopofChurchofJesus
ChristofLatterdaySaintsv.Amos,483U.S.327,342(1987)(Brennan,J.,concurringinjudgment)).Butthis
principleappliesequallytoforprofitcorporations:Furtheringtheirreligiousfreedomalso"furthersindividual
religiousfreedom."Inthesecases,forexample,allowingHobbyLobby,Conestoga,andMardeltoassertRFRA
claimsprotectsthereligiouslibertyoftheGreensandtheHahns. 21
Ifthecorporateformisnotenough,whatabouttheprofitmakingobjective?InBraunfeld,366U.S.599,we
entertainedthefreeexerciseclaimsofindividualswhowereattemptingtomakeaprofitasretailmerchants,
andtheCourtneverevenhintedthatthisobjectiveprecludedtheirclaims.AstheCourtexplainedinalatercase,
the"exerciseofreligion"involves"notonlybeliefandprofessionbuttheperformanceof(orabstentionfrom)
physicalacts"thatare"engagedinforreligiousreasons."Smith,494U.S.,at877.Businesspracticesthatare
compelledorlimitedbythetenetsofareligiousdoctrinefallcomfortablywithinthatdefinition.Thus,alawthat
"operatessoastomakethepracticeof...religiousbeliefsmoreexpensive"inthecontextofbusinessactivities
imposesaburdenontheexerciseofreligion.Braunfeld,supra,at605seeUnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.252,
257(1982)(recognizingthat"compulsoryparticipationinthesocialsecuritysysteminterfereswith[Amish
employers']freeexerciserights").
If,asBraunfeldrecognized,asoleproprietorshipthatseekstomakeaprofitmayassertafreeexercise
claim, 22whycan'tHobbyLobby,Conestoga,andMardeldothesame?
SomelowercourtjudgeshavesuggestedthatRFRAdoesnotprotectforprofitcorporationsbecausethe
purposeofsuchcorporationsissimplytomakemoney. 23Thisargumentfliesinthefaceofmoderncorporate
law."EachAmericanjurisdictiontodayeitherexpresslyorbyimplicationauthorizescorporationstobeformed
underitsgeneralcorporationactforanylawfulpurposeorbusiness."1J.Cox&T.Hazen,TreatiseoftheLaw
ofCorporations4:1,p.224(3ded.2010)(emphasisadded)see1AW.Fletcher,CyclopediaoftheLawof
Corporations102(rev.ed.2010).Whileitiscertainlytruethatacentralobjectiveofforprofitcorporationsis
tomakemoney,moderncorporatelawdoesnotrequireforprofitcorporationstopursueprofitattheexpenseof
everythingelse,andmanydonotdoso.Forprofitcorporations,withownershipapproval,supportawide
varietyofcharitablecauses,anditisnotatalluncommonforsuchcorporationstofurtherhumanitarianand
otheraltruisticobjectives.Manyexamplescomereadilytomind.Solongasitsownersagree,aforprofit
corporationmaytakecostlypollutioncontrolandenergyconservationmeasuresthatgobeyondwhatthelaw
requires.Aforprofitcorporationthatoperatesfacilitiesinothercountriesmayexceedtherequirementsoflocal
lawregardingworkingconditionsandbenefits.Ifforprofitcorporationsmaypursuesuchworthyobjectives,
thereisnoapparentreasonwhytheymaynotfurtherreligiousobjectivesaswell.
HHSwoulddrawasharplinebetweennonprofitcorporations(which,HHSconcedes,areprotectedby
RFRA)andforprofitcorporations(whichHHSwouldleaveunprotected),buttheactualpictureislessclear
cut.Notallcorporationsthatdeclinetoorganizeasnonprofitsdosoinordertomaximizeprofit.Forexample,
organizationswithreligiousandcharitableaimsmightorganizeasforprofitcorporationsbecauseofthe
potentialadvantagesofthatcorporateform,suchasthefreedomtoparticipateinlobbyingforlegislationor
campaigningforpoliticalcandidateswhopromotetheirreligiousorcharitablegoals. 24Infact,recognizingthe
inherentcompatibilitybetweenestablishingaforprofitcorporationandpursuingnonprofitgoals,Stateshave
increasinglyadoptedlawsformallyrecognizinghybridcorporateforms.OverhalfoftheStates,forinstance,
nowrecognizethe"benefitcorporation,"adualpurposeentitythatseekstoachievebothabenefitforthepublic
andaprofitforitsowners. 25
Inanyevent,theobjectivesthatmayproperlybepursuedbythecompaniesinthesecasesaregovernedbythe
lawsoftheStatesinwhichtheywereincorporatedPennsylvaniaandOklahomaandthelawsofthoseStates
8/31
13/6/2016
permitforprofitcorporationstopursue"anylawfulpurpose"or"act,"includingthepursuitofprofitin
conformitywiththeowners'religiousprinciples.15Pa.Cons.Stat.1301(2001)("Corporationsmaybe
incorporatedunderthissubpartforanylawfulpurposeorpurposes")Okla.Stat.,Tit.18,1002,1005(West
2012)("[E]verycorporation,whetherprofitornotforprofit"may"beincorporatedororganized...toconduct
orpromoteanylawfulbusinessorpurposes")seealso1006(A)(3)BriefforStateofOklahomaasAmicus
CuriaeinNo.13354.
3
HHSandtheprincipaldissentmakeoneadditionalargumentinanefforttoshowthataforprofit
corporationcannotengageinthe"exerciseofreligion"withinthemeaningofRFRA:HHSarguesthatRFRA
didnomorethancodifythisCourt'spreSmithFreeExerciseClauseprecedents,andbecausenoneofthose
casessquarelyheldthataforprofitcorporationhasfreeexerciserights,RFRAdoesnotconfersuchprotection.
Thisargumenthasmanyflaws.
First,nothinginthetextofRFRAasoriginallyenactedsuggestedthatthestatutoryphrase"exerciseof
religionundertheFirstAmendment"wasmeanttobetiedtothisCourt'spreSmithinterpretationofthat
Amendment.Whenfirstenacted,RFRAdefinedthe"exerciseofreligion"tomean"theexerciseofreligionunder
theFirstAmendment"nottheexerciseofreligionasrecognizedonlybythenexistingSupremeCourt
precedents.42U.S.C.2000bb2(4)(1994ed.).WhenCongresswantstolinkthemeaningofastatutory
provisiontoabodyofthisCourt'scaselaw,itknowshowtodoso.See,e.g.,AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeath
PenaltyActof1996,28U.S.C.2254(d)(1)(authorizinghabeasrelieffromastatecourtdecisionthat"was
contraryto,orinvolvedanunreasonableapplicationof,clearlyestablishedFederallaw,asdeterminedbythe
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates").
Second,iftheoriginaltextofRFRAwasnotclearenoughonthispointandwethinkitwasthe
amendmentofRFRAthroughRLUIPAsurelydispelsanydoubt.Thatamendmentdeletedthepriorreferenceto
theFirstAmendment,see42U.S.C.2000bb2(4)(2000ed.)(incorporating2000cc5),andneitherHHS
northeprincipaldissentcanexplainwhyCongressdidthisifitwantedtotieRFRAcoveragetightlytothe
specificholdingsofourpreSmithfreeexercisecases.Moreover,asdiscussed,theamendmentwentfurther,
providingthattheexerciseofreligion"shallbeconstruedinfavorofabroadprotectionofreligiousexercise,to
themaximumextentpermittedbythetermsofthischapterandtheConstitution."2000cc3(g).Itissimplynot
possibletoreadtheseprovisionsasrestrictingtheconceptofthe"exerciseofreligion"tothosepractices
specificallyaddressedinourpreSmithdecisions.
Third,theonepreSmithcaseinvolvingthefreeexerciserightsofaforprofitcorporationsuggests,if
anything,thatforprofitcorporationspossesssuchrights.InGallagherv.CrownKosherSuperMarketof
Mass.,Inc.,366U.S.617(1961),theMassachusettsSundayclosinglawwaschallengedbyakoshermarket
thatwasorganizedasaforprofitcorporation,bycustomersofthemarket,andbyarabbi.TheCommonwealth
arguedthatthecorporationlacked"standing"toassertafreeexerciseclaim, 26butnotonememberoftheCourt
expressedagreementwiththatargument.ThepluralityopinionforfourJusticesrejectedtheFirstAmendment
claimonthemeritsbasedonthereasoninginBraunfeld,andreserveddecisiononthequestionwhetherthe
corporationhad"standing"toraisetheclaim.See366U.S.,at631.Thethreedissenters,JusticesDouglas,
Brennan,andStewart,foundthelawunconstitutionalasappliedtothecorporationandtheotherchallengers
andthusimplicitlyrecognizedtheirrighttoassertafreeexerciseclaim.Seeid.,at642(Brennan,J.,joinedby
Stewart,J.,dissenting)McGowanv.Maryland,366U.S.420,578579(1961)(Douglas,J.,dissentingasto
relatedcasesincludingGallagher).Finally,JusticeFrankfurter'sopinion,whichwasjoinedbyJusticeHarlan,
upheldtheMassachusettslawonthemeritsbutdidnotquestionorreservedecisionontheissueoftherightof
thecorporationoranyoftheotherchallengerstobeheard.SeeMcGowan,366U.S.,at521522.Itisquitea
stretchtoarguethatRFRA,alawenactedtoprovideverybroadprotectionforreligiousliberty,leftforprofit
corporationsunprotectedsimplybecauseinGallaghertheonlypreSmithcaseinwhichtheissuewasraised
amajorityoftheJusticesdidnotfinditnecessarytodecidewhetherthekoshermarket'scorporatestatusbarred
itfromraisingafreeexerciseclaim.
Finally,theresultswouldbeabsurdifRFRAmerelyrestoredthisCourt'spreSmithdecisionsinossifiedform
anddidnotallowaplaintifftoraiseaRFRAclaimunlessthatplaintifffellwithinacategoryofplaintiffsoneof
whomhadbroughtafreeexerciseclaimthatthisCourtentertainedintheyearsbeforeSmith.Forexample,we
arenotawareofanypreSmithcaseinwhichthisCourtentertainedafreeexerciseclaimbroughtbyaresident
noncitizen.AresuchpersonsalsobeyondRFRA'sprotectivereachsimplybecausetheCourtneveraddressed
theirrightsbeforeSmith?
Presumablyinrecognitionoftheweaknessofthisargument,bothHHSandtheprincipaldissentfallback
onthebroadercontentionthattheNationlacksatraditionofexemptingforprofitcorporationsfromgenerally
applicablelaws.Bycontrast,HHScontends,statuteslikeTitleVII,42U.S.C.2000e19(A),expresslyexempt
churchesandothernonprofitreligiousinstitutionsbutnotforprofitcorporations.SeeBriefforHHSinNo.13
356,p.26.Inmakingthisargument,however,HHSdidnotcalltoourattentionthefactthatsomefederal
statutesdoexemptcategoriesofentitiesthatincludeforprofitcorporationsfromlawsthatwouldotherwise
requiretheseentitiestoengageinactivitiestowhichtheyobjectongroundsofconscience.See,e.g.,42U.S.C.
300a7(b)(2)238n(a). 27IfTitleVIIandsimilarlawsshowanything,itisthatCongressspeakswith
specificitywhenitintendsareligiousaccommodationnottoextendtoforprofitcorporations.
4
Finally,HHScontendsthatCongresscouldnothavewantedRFRAtoapplytoforprofitcorporations
becauseitisdifficultasapracticalmattertoascertainthesincere"beliefs"ofacorporation.HHSgoessofaras
toraisethespecterof"divisive,polarizingproxybattlesoverthereligiousidentityoflarge,publiclytraded
corporationssuchasIBMorGeneralElectric."BriefforHHSinNo.13356,at30.
Thesecases,however,donotinvolvepubliclytradedcorporations,anditseemsunlikelythatthesortof
corporategiantstowhichHHSreferswilloftenassertRFRAclaims.HHShasnotpointedtoanyexampleofa
9/31
13/6/2016
publiclytradedcorporationassertingRFRArights,andnumerouspracticalrestraintswouldlikelypreventthat
fromoccurring.Forexample,theideathatunrelatedshareholdersincludinginstitutionalinvestorswiththeir
ownsetofstakeholderswouldagreetorunacorporationunderthesamereligiousbeliefsseemsimprobable.
Inanyevent,wehavenooccasioninthesecasestoconsiderRFRA'sapplicabilitytosuchcompanies.The
companiesinthecasesbeforeusarecloselyheldcorporations,eachownedandcontrolledbymembersofa
singlefamily,andnoonehasdisputedthesincerityoftheirreligiousbeliefs. 28
HHShasalsoprovidednoevidencethatthepurportedproblemofdeterminingthesincerityofanasserted
religiousbeliefmovedCongresstoexcludeforprofitcorporationsfromRFRA'sprotection.Onthecontrary,the
scopeofRLUIPAshowsthatCongresswasconfidentoftheabilityofthefederalcourtstoweedoutinsincere
claims.RLUIPAappliesto"institutionalizedpersons,"acategorythatconsistsprimarilyofprisoners,andby
thetimeofRLUIPA'senactment,thepropensityofsomeprisonerstoassertclaimsofdubioussinceritywaswell
documented. 29Nevertheless,afterourdecisioninCityofBoerne,CongressenactedRLUIPAtopreservethe
rightofprisonerstoraisereligiouslibertyclaims.IfCongressthoughtthatthefederalcourtswereuptothejob
ofdealingwithinsincereprisonerclaims,thereisnoreasontobelievethatCongresslimitedRFRA'sreachout
ofconcernfortheseeminglylessdifficulttaskofdoingthesameincorporatecases.Andif,asHHSseemsto
concede,CongresswantedRFRAtoapplytononprofitcorporations,see,ReplyBriefinNo.13354,at78,what
reasonistheretothinkthatCongressbelievedthatspottinginsincereclaimswouldbetougherincases
involvingforprofits?
HHSandtheprincipaldissentexpressconcernaboutthepossibilityofdisputesamongtheownersof
corporations,butthatisnotaproblemthatarisesbecauseofRFRAorthatisuniquetothiscontext.Theowners
ofcloselyheldcorporationsmayandsometimesdodisagreeabouttheconductofbusiness.1Treatiseofthe
LawofCorporations14:11.AndevenifRFRAdidnotexist,theownersofacompanymightwellhaveadispute
relatingtoreligion.Forexample,somemightwantacompany'sstorestoremainopenontheSabbathinorder
tomakemoremoney,andothersmightwantthestorestocloseforreligiousreasons.Statecorporatelaw
providesareadymeansforresolvinganyconflictsby,forexample,dictatinghowacorporationcanestablishits
governingstructure.See,e.g.,ibidid.,3:2Del.CodeAnn.,Tit.8,351(2011)(providingthatcertificateof
incorporationmayprovidehow"thebusinessofthecorporationshallbemanaged").Courtswillturntothat
structureandtheunderlyingstatelawinresolvingdisputes.
Forallthesereasons,weholdthatafederalregulation'srestrictionontheactivitiesofaforprofitclosely
heldcorporationmustcomplywithRFRA. 30
IV
BecauseRFRAappliesinthesecases,wemustnextaskwhethertheHHScontraceptivemandate
"substantiallyburden[s]"theexerciseofreligion.42U.S.C.2000bb1(a).Wehavelittletroubleconcluding
thatitdoes.
A
Aswehavenoted,theHahnsandGreenshaveasincerereligiousbeliefthatlifebeginsatconception.They
thereforeobjectonreligiousgroundstoprovidinghealthinsurancethatcoversmethodsofbirthcontrolthat,as
HHSacknowledges,seeBriefforHHSinNo.13354,at9,n.4,mayresultinthedestructionofanembryo.By
requiringtheHahnsandGreensandtheircompaniestoarrangeforsuchcoverage,theHHSmandatedemands
thattheyengageinconductthatseriouslyviolatestheirreligiousbeliefs.
IftheHahnsandGreensandtheircompaniesdonotyieldtothisdemand,theeconomicconsequenceswill
besevere.Ifthecompaniescontinuetooffergrouphealthplansthatdonotcoverthecontraceptivesatissue,
theywillbetaxed$100perdayforeachaffectedindividual.26U.S.C.4980D.ForHobbyLobby,thebill
couldamountto$1.3millionperdayorabout$475millionperyearforConestoga,theassessmentcouldbe
$90,000perdayor$33millionperyearandforMardel,itcouldbe$40,000perdayorabout$15millionper
year.Thesesumsaresurelysubstantial.
Itistruethattheplaintiffscouldavoidtheseassessmentsbydroppinginsurancecoveragealtogetherand
thusforcingtheiremployeestoobtainhealthinsuranceononeoftheexchangesestablishedunderACA.Butif
atleastoneoftheirfulltimeemployeesweretoqualifyforasubsidyononeofthegovernmentrunexchanges,
thiscoursewouldalsoentailsubstantialeconomicconsequences.Thecompaniescouldfacepenaltiesof
$2,000peremployeeeachyear.4980H.Thesepenaltieswouldamounttoroughly$26millionforHobby
Lobby,$1.8millionforConestoga,and$800,000forMardel.
B
Althoughthesetotalsarehigh,amicisupportingHHShavesuggestedthatthe$2,000peremployeepenalty
isactuallylessthantheaveragecostofprovidinghealthinsurance,seeBriefforReligiousOrganizations22,
andtherefore,theyclaim,thecompaniescouldreadilyeliminateanysubstantialburdenbyforcingtheir
employeestoobtaininsuranceinthegovernmentexchanges.Wedonotgenerallyentertainargumentsthat
werenotraisedbelowandarenotadvancedinthisCourtbyanyparty,seeUnitedParcelService,Inc.v.
Mitchell,451U.S.56,60,n.2(1981)Bellv.Wolfish,441U.S.520,532,n.13(1979)Knetschv.United
States,364U.S.361,370(1960),andtherearestrongreasonstoadheretothatpracticeinthesecases.HHS,
whichpresumablycouldhavecompiledtherelevantstatistics,hasnevermadethisargumentnotinits
voluminousbriefingoratoralargumentinthisCourtnor,toourknowledge,inanyofthenumerouscasesin
whichtheissuenowbeforeushasbeenlitigatedaroundthecountry.Asthingsnowstand,wedonoteven
knowwhattheGovernment'spositionmightbewithrespecttotheseamici'sintenselyempiricalargument. 31
Forthissamereason,theplaintiffshaveneverhadanopportunitytorespondtothisnovelclaimthatcontrary
totheirlongstandingpracticeandthatofmostlargeemployerstheywouldbebetteroffdiscardingtheir
employerinsuranceplansaltogether.
Evenifweweretoreachthisargument,wewouldfinditunpersuasive.Asaninitialmatter,itentirelyignores
10/31
13/6/2016
thefactthattheHahnsandGreensandtheircompanieshavereligiousreasonsforprovidinghealthinsurance
coveragefortheiremployees.BeforetheadventofACA,theywerenotlegallycompelledtoprovideinsurance,
buttheyneverthelessdidsoinpart,nodoubt,forconventionalbusinessreasons,butalsoinpartbecausetheir
religiousbeliefsgoverntheirrelationswiththeiremployees.SeeApp.toPet.forCert.inNo.13356,p.11gApp.
inNo.13354,at139.
Puttingasidethereligiousdimensionofthedecisiontoprovideinsurance,moreover,itisfarfromclearthat
thenetcosttothecompaniesofprovidinginsuranceismorethanthecostofdroppingtheirinsuranceplans
andpayingtheACApenalty.Healthinsuranceisabenefitthatemployeesvalue.Ifthecompaniessimply
eliminatedthatbenefitandforcedemployeestopurchasetheirowninsuranceontheexchanges,without
offeringadditionalcompensation,itispredictablethatthecompanieswouldfaceacompetitivedisadvantagein
retainingandattractingskilledworkers.SeeApp.inNo.13354,at153.
Thecompaniescouldattempttomakeupfortheeliminationofagrouphealthplanbyincreasingwages,but
thiswouldbecostly.Grouphealthinsuranceisgenerallylessexpensivethancomparableindividualcoverage,
sotheamountofthesalaryincreaseneededtofullycompensatefortheterminationofinsurancecoveragemay
wellexceedthecosttothecompaniesofprovidingtheinsurance.Inaddition,anysalaryincreasewouldhaveto
takeintoaccountthefactthatemployeesmustpayincometaxesonwagesbutnotonthevalueofemployer
providedhealthinsurance.26U.S.C.106(a).Likewise,employerscandeductthecostofprovidinghealth
insurance,see162(a)(1),butapparentlycannotdeducttheamountofthepenaltythattheymustpayif
insuranceisnotprovidedthatdifferencealsomustbetakenintoaccount.Giventheseeconomicincentives,itis
farfromclearthatitwouldbefinanciallyadvantageousforanemployertodropcoverageandpaythepenalty. 32
Insum,werefusetosustainthechallengedregulationsonthegroundnevermaintainedbythe
GovernmentthatdroppinginsurancecoverageeliminatesthesubstantialburdenthattheHHSmandate
imposes.WedoubtthattheCongressthatenactedRFRAor,forthatmatter,ACAwouldhavebelievedita
tolerableresulttoputfamilyrunbusinessestothechoiceofviolatingtheirsincerelyheldreligiousbeliefsor
makingalloftheiremployeeslosetheirexistinghealthcareplans.
C
IntakingthepositionthattheHHSmandatedoesnotimposeasubstantialburdenontheexerciseof
religion,HHS'smainargument(echoedbytheprincipaldissent)isbasicallythattheconnectionbetweenwhat
theobjectingpartiesmustdo(providehealthinsurancecoverageforfourmethodsofcontraceptionthatmay
operateafterthefertilizationofanegg)andtheendthattheyfindtobemorallywrong(destructionofan
embryo)issimplytooattenuated.BriefforHHSin13354,pp.3134post,at2223.HHSandthedissentnote
thatprovidingthecoveragewouldnotitselfresultinthedestructionofanembryothatwouldoccuronlyifan
employeechosetotakeadvantageofthecoverageandtouseoneofthefourmethodsatissue. 33Ibid.
ThisargumentdodgesthequestionthatRFRApresents(whethertheHHSmandateimposesasubstantial
burdenontheabilityoftheobjectingpartiestoconductbusinessinaccordancewiththeirreligiousbeliefs)and
insteadaddressesaverydifferentquestionthatthefederalcourtshavenobusinessaddressing(whetherthe
religiousbeliefassertedinaRFRAcaseisreasonable).TheHahnsandGreensbelievethatprovidingthe
coveragedemandedbytheHHSregulationsisconnectedtothedestructionofanembryoinawaythatis
sufficienttomakeitimmoralforthemtoprovidethecoverage.Thisbeliefimplicatesadifficultandimportant
questionofreligionandmoralphilosophy,namely,thecircumstancesunderwhichitiswrongforapersonto
performanactthatisinnocentinitselfbutthathastheeffectofenablingorfacilitatingthecommissionofan
immoralactbyanother. 34Arrogatingtheauthoritytoprovideabindingnationalanswertothisreligiousand
philosophicalquestion,HHSandtheprincipaldissentineffecttelltheplaintiffsthattheirbeliefsareflawed.
Forgoodreason,wehaverepeatedlyrefusedtotakesuchastep.See,e.g.,Smith,494U.S.,at887("Repeatedly
andinmanydifferentcontexts,wehavewarnedthatcourtsmustnotpresumetodetermine...theplausibility
ofareligiousclaim")Hernandezv.Commissioner,490U.S.680,699(1989)PresbyterianChurchinU.S.v.
MaryElizabethBlueHullMemorialPresbyterianChurch,393U.S.440,450(1969).
Moreover,inThomasv.ReviewBd.ofIndianaEmploymentSecurityDiv.,450U.S.707(1981),we
consideredandrejectedanargumentthatisnearlyidenticaltotheonenowurgedbyHHSandthedissent.In
Thomas,aJehovah'sWitnesswasinitiallyemployedmakingsheetsteelforavarietyofindustrialuses,buthe
waslatertransferredtoajobmakingturretsfortanks.Id.,at710.Becauseheobjectedonreligiousgroundsto
participatinginthemanufactureofweapons,helosthisjobandsoughtunemploymentcompensation.Ruling
againsttheemployee,thestatecourthaddifficultywiththelinethattheemployeedrewbetweenworkthathe
foundtobeconsistentwithhisreligiousbeliefs(helpingtomanufacturesteelthatwasusedinmaking
weapons)andworkthathefoundmorallyobjectionable(helpingtomaketheweaponsthemselves).ThisCourt,
however,heldthat"itisnotforustosaythatthelinehedrewwasanunreasonableone."Id.,at715. 35
Similarly,inthesecases,theHahnsandGreensandtheircompaniessincerelybelievethatprovidingthe
insurancecoveragedemandedbytheHHSregulationsliesontheforbiddensideoftheline,anditisnotforus
tosaythattheirreligiousbeliefsaremistakenorinsubstantial.Instead,our"narrowfunction...inthiscontext
istodetermine"whetherthelinedrawnreflects"anhonestconviction,"id.,at716,andthereisnodisputethat
itdoes.
HHSneverthelesscomparesthesecasestodecisionsinwhichwerejectedtheargumentthattheuseof
generaltaxrevenuetosubsidizethesecularactivitiesofreligiousinstitutionsviolatedtheFreeExerciseClause.
SeeTiltonv.Richardson,403U.S.672,689(1971)(plurality)BoardofEd.ofCentralSchoolDist.No.1v.
Allen,392U.S.236,248249(1968).Butinthosecases,whilethesubsidieswereclearlycontrarytothe
challengers'viewsonasecularissue,namely,properchurchstaterelations,thechallengersneverarticulateda
religiousobjectiontothesubsidies.AsweputitinTilton,theywere"unabletoidentifyanycoerciondirectedat
thepracticeorexerciseoftheirreligiousbeliefs."403U.S.,at689(pluralityopinion)seeAllen,supra,at249
("[A]ppellantshavenotcontendedthattheNewYorklawinanywaycoercesthemasindividualsinthepractice
oftheirreligion").Here,incontrast,theplaintiffsdoassertthatfundingthespecificcontraceptivemethodsat
issueviolatestheirreligiousbeliefs,andHHSdoesnotquestiontheirsincerity.Becausethecontraceptive
11/31
13/6/2016
mandateforcesthemtopayanenormoussumofmoneyasmuchas$475millionperyearinthecaseofHobby
Lobbyiftheyinsistonprovidinginsurancecoverageinaccordancewiththeirreligiousbeliefs,themandate
clearlyimposesasubstantialburdenonthosebeliefs.
V
SincetheHHScontraceptivemandateimposesasubstantialburdenontheexerciseofreligion,wemust
moveonanddecidewhetherHHShasshownthatthemandateboth"(1)isinfurtheranceofacompelling
governmentalinterestand(2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmental
interest."42U.S.C.2000bb1(b).
A
HHSassertsthatthecontraceptivemandateservesavarietyofimportantinterests,butmanyoftheseare
couchedinverybroadterms,suchaspromoting"publichealth"and"genderequality."BriefforHHSinNo.13
354,at46,49.RFRA,however,contemplatesa"morefocused"inquiry:It"requirestheGovernmentto
demonstratethatthecompellinginteresttestissatisfiedthroughapplicationofthechallengedlaw'tothe
person'theparticularclaimantwhosesincereexerciseofreligionisbeingsubstantiallyburdened."O'Centro,
546U.S.,at430431(quoting2000bb1(b)).Thisrequiresusto"loo[k]beyondbroadlyformulatedinterests"
andto"scrutiniz[e]theassertedharmofgrantingspecificexemptionstoparticularreligiousclaimants"in
otherwords,tolooktothemarginalinterestinenforcingthecontraceptivemandateinthesecases.OCentro,
supra,at431.
Inadditiontoassertingtheseverybroadlyframedinterests,HHSmaintainsthatthemandateservesa
compellinginterestinensuringthatallwomenhaveaccesstoallFDAapprovedcontraceptiveswithoutcost
sharing.SeeBriefforHHSinNo.13354,at1415,49seeBriefforHHSinNo.13356,at10,48.Underour
cases,women(andmen)haveaconstitutionalrighttoobtaincontraceptives,seeGriswoldv.Connecticut,381
U.S.479,485486(1965),andHHStellsusthat"[s]tudieshavedemonstratedthatevenmoderatecopayments
forpreventiveservicescandeterpatientsfromreceivingthoseservices."BriefforHHSinNo.13354,at50
(internalquotationmarksomitted).
TheobjectingpartiescontendthatHHShasnotshownthatthemandateservesacompellinggovernment
interest,anditisarguablethattherearefeaturesofACAthatsupportthatview.Aswehavenoted,many
employeesthosecoveredbygrandfatheredplansandthosewhoworkforemployerswithfewerthan50
employeesmayhavenocontraceptivecoveragewithoutcostsharingatall.
HHSrespondsthatmanylegalrequirementshaveexceptionsandtheexistenceofexceptionsdoesnotin
itselfindicatethattheprincipalinterestservedbyalawisnotcompelling.Evenacompellinginterestmaybe
outweighedinsomecircumstancesbyanotherevenweightierconsideration.Inthesecases,however,the
interestservedbyoneofthebiggestexceptions,theexceptionforgrandfatheredplans,issimplytheinterestof
employersinavoidingtheinconvenienceofamendinganexistingplan.Grandfatheredplansarerequired"to
complywithasubsetoftheAffordableCareAct'shealthreformprovisions"thatprovidewhatHHShas
describedas"particularlysignificantprotections."75Fed.Reg.34540(2010).Butthecontraceptivemandateis
expresslyexcludedfromthissubset.Ibid.
Wefinditunnecessarytoadjudicatethisissue.Wewillassumethattheinterestinguaranteeingcostfree
accesstothefourchallengedcontraceptivemethodsiscompellingwithinthemeaningofRFRA,andwewill
proceedtoconsiderthefinalprongoftheRFRAtest,i.e.,whetherHHShasshownthatthecontraceptive
mandateis"theleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmentalinterest."2000bb1(b)(2).
B
Theleastrestrictivemeansstandardisexceptionallydemanding,seeCityofBoerne,521U.S.,at532,andit
isnotsatisfiedhere.HHShasnotshownthatitlacksothermeansofachievingitsdesiredgoalwithout
imposingasubstantialburdenontheexerciseofreligionbytheobjectingpartiesinthesecases.See2000bb
1(a),(b)(requiringtheGovernmentto"demonstrat[e]thatapplicationof[asubstantial]burdentotheperson
...istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurthering[a]compellinggovernmentalinterest"(emphasisadded)).
ThemoststraightforwardwayofdoingthiswouldbefortheGovernmenttoassumethecostofprovidingthe
fourcontraceptivesatissuetoanywomenwhoareunabletoobtainthemundertheirhealthinsurancepolicies
duetotheiremployers'religiousobjections.Thiswouldcertainlybelessrestrictiveoftheplaintiffs'religious
liberty,andHHShasnotshown,see2000bb1(b)(2),thatthisisnotaviablealternative.HHShasnot
providedanyestimateoftheaveragecostperemployeeofprovidingaccesstothesecontraceptives,twoof
which,accordingtotheFDA,aredesignedprimarilyforemergencyuse.SeeBirthControl:MedicinestoHelp
You,onlineathttp://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/freepublications/ucm313215.htm.
NorhasHHSprovidedanystatisticsregardingthenumberofemployeeswhomightbeaffectedbecausethey
workforcorporationslikeHobbyLobby,Conestoga,andMardel.NorhasHHStoldusthatitisunableto
providesuchstatistics.Itseemslikely,however,thatthecostofprovidingtheformsofcontraceptivesatissuein
thesecases(ifnotallFDAapprovedcontraceptives)wouldbeminorwhencomparedwiththeoverallcostof
ACA.AccordingtooneoftheCongressionalBudgetOffice'smostrecentforecasts,ACA'sinsurancecoverage
provisionswillcosttheFederalGovernmentmorethan$1.3trillionthroughthenextdecade.SeeCBO,Updated
EstimatesoftheEffectsoftheInsuranceCoverageProvisionsoftheAffordableCareAct,April2014,p.2. 36If,
asHHStellsus,providingallwomenwithcostfreeaccesstoallFDAapprovedmethodsofcontraceptionisa
Governmentinterestofthehighestorder,itishardtounderstandHHS'sargumentthatitcannotberequired
underRFRAtopayanythinginordertoachievethisimportantgoal.
HHScontendsthatRFRAdoesnotpermitustotakethisoptionintoaccountbecause"RFRAcannotbeused
torequirecreationofentirelynewprograms."BriefforHHSin13354,at15. 37ButweseenothinginRFRAthat
supportsthisargument,anddrawingthelinebetweenthe"creationofanentirelynewprogram"andthe
modificationofanexistingprogram(whichRFRAsurelyallows)wouldbefraughtwithproblems.Wedonot
12/31
13/6/2016
doubtthatcostmaybeanimportantfactorintheleastrestrictivemeansanalysis,butbothRFRAanditssister
statute,RLUIPA,mayinsomecircumstancesrequiretheGovernmenttoexpendadditionalfundsto
accommodatecitizens'religiousbeliefs.Cf.2000cc3(c)(RLUIPA:"[T]hischaptermayrequireagovernment
toincurexpensesinitsownoperationstoavoidimposingasubstantialburdenonreligiousexercise.").HHS's
viewthatRFRAcanneverrequiretheGovernmenttospendevenasmallamountreflectsajudgmentaboutthe
importanceofreligiouslibertythatwasnotsharedbytheCongressthatenactedthatlaw.
Intheend,however,weneednotrelyontheoptionofanew,governmentfundedprograminorderto
concludethattheHHSregulationsfailtheleastrestrictivemeanstest.HHSitselfhasdemonstratedthatithas
atitsdisposalanapproachthatislessrestrictivethanrequiringemployerstofundcontraceptivemethodsthat
violatetheirreligiousbeliefs.Asweexplainedabove,HHShasalreadyestablishedanaccommodationfor
nonprofitorganizationswithreligiousobjections.Seesupra,at910,andnn.89.Underthataccommodation,
theorganizationcanselfcertifythatitopposesprovidingcoverageforparticularcontraceptiveservices.See45
CFR147.131(b)(4),(c)(1)26CFR54.98152713A(a)(4),(b).Iftheorganizationmakessucha
certification,theorganization'sinsuranceissuerorthirdpartyadministratormust"[e]xpresslyexclude
contraceptivecoveragefromthegrouphealthinsurancecoverageprovidedinconnectionwiththegrouphealth
plan"and"[p]rovideseparatepaymentsforanycontraceptiveservicesrequiredtobecovered"withoutimposing
"anycostsharingrequirements...ontheeligibleorganization,thegrouphealthplan,orplanparticipantsor
beneficiaries."45CFR147.131(c)(2)26CFR54.98152713A(c)(2). 38
WedonotdecidetodaywhetheranapproachofthistypecomplieswithRFRAforpurposesofallreligious
claims. 39Ataminimum,however,itdoesnotimpingeontheplaintiffs'religiousbeliefthatproviding
insurancecoverageforthecontraceptivesatissuehereviolatestheirreligion,anditservesHHS'sstated
interestsequallywell. 40
Theprincipaldissentidentifiesnoreasonwhythisaccommodationwouldfailtoprotecttheassertedneedsof
womenaseffectivelyasthecontraceptivemandate,andthereisnone. 41Undertheaccommodation,the
plaintiffs'femaleemployeeswouldcontinuetoreceivecontraceptivecoveragewithoutcostsharingforallFDA
approvedcontraceptives,andtheywouldcontinueto"faceminimallogisticalandadministrativeobstacles,"
post,at28(internalquotationmarksomitted),becausetheiremployers'insurerswouldberesponsiblefor
providinginformationandcoverage,see,e.g.,45CFR147.131(c)(d)cf.26CFR54.98152713A(b),(d).
Ironically,itisthedissent'sapproachthatwould"[i]mped[e]women'sreceiptofbenefitsby'requiringthemto
takestepstolearnabout,andtosignupfor,anewgovernmentfundedandadministeredhealthbenefit,'"post,
at28,becausethedissentwouldeffectivelycompelreligiousemployerstodrophealthinsurancecoverage
altogether,leavingtheiremployeestofindindividualplansongovernmentrunexchangesorelsewhere.Thisis
indeed"scarcelywhatCongresscontemplated."Ibid.
C
HHSandtheprincipaldissentarguethatarulinginfavoroftheobjectingpartiesinthesecaseswillleadtoa
floodofreligiousobjectionsregardingawidevarietyofmedicalproceduresanddrugs,suchasvaccinationsand
bloodtransfusions,butHHShasmadenoefforttosubstantiatethisprediction. 42HHSpointstonoevidence
thatinsuranceplansinexistencepriortotheenactmentofACAexcludedcoverageforsuchitems.NorhasHHS
providedevidencethatanysignificantnumberofemployerssoughtexemption,onreligiousgrounds,fromany
ofACA'scoveragerequirementsotherthanthecontraceptivemandate.
ItisHHS'sapparentbeliefthatnoinsurancecoveragemandatewouldviolateRFRAnomatterhow
significantlyitimpingesonthereligiouslibertiesofemployersthatwouldleadtointolerableconsequences.
UnderHHS'sview,RFRAwouldpermittheGovernmenttorequireallemployerstoprovidecoverageforany
medicalprocedureallowedbylawinthejurisdictioninquestionforinstance,thirdtrimesterabortionsor
assistedsuicide.Theownersofmanycloselyheldcorporationscouldnotingoodconscienceprovidesuch
coverage,andthusHHSwouldeffectivelyexcludethesepeoplefromfullparticipationintheeconomiclifeofthe
Nation.RFRAwasenactedtopreventsuchanoutcome.
Inanyevent,ourdecisioninthesecasesisconcernedsolelywiththecontraceptivemandate.Ourdecision
shouldnotbeunderstoodtoholdthataninsurancecoveragemandatemustnecessarilyfallifitconflictswith
anemployer'sreligiousbeliefs.Othercoveragerequirements,suchasimmunizations,maybesupportedby
differentinterests(forexample,theneedtocombatthespreadofinfectiousdiseases)andmayinvolvedifferent
argumentsabouttheleastrestrictivemeansofprovidingthem.
Theprincipaldissentraisesthepossibilitythatdiscriminationinhiring,forexampleonthebasisofrace,
mightbecloakedasreligiouspracticetoescapelegalsanction.Seepost,at3233.Ourdecisiontodayprovides
nosuchshield.TheGovernmenthasacompellinginterestinprovidinganequalopportunitytoparticipatein
theworkforcewithoutregardtorace,andprohibitionsonracialdiscriminationarepreciselytailoredtoachieve
thatcriticalgoal.
HHSalsoraisesforthefirsttimeinthisCourttheargumentthatapplyingthecontraceptivemandatetofor
profitemployerswithsincerereligiousobjectionsisessentialtothecomprehensivehealthinsurancescheme
thatACAestablishes.HHSanalogizesthecontraceptivemandatetotherequirementtopaySocialSecurity
taxes,whichweupheldinLeedespitethereligiousobjectionofanemployer,butthesecasesarequitedifferent.
OurholdinginLeeturnedprimarilyonthespecialproblemsassociatedwithanationalsystemoftaxation.We
notedthat"[t]heobligationtopaythesocialsecuritytaxinitiallyisnotfundamentallydifferentfromthe
obligationtopayincometaxes."455U.S.,at260.Basedonthatpremise,weexplainedthatitwasuntenableto
allowindividualstoseekexemptionsfromtaxesbasedonreligiousobjectionstoparticularGovernment
expenditures:"If,forexample,areligiousadherentbelieveswarisasin,andifacertainpercentageofthe
federalbudgetcanbeidentifiedasdevotedtowarrelatedactivities,suchindividualswouldhaveasimilarly
validclaimtobeexemptfrompayingthatpercentageoftheincometax."Ibid.Weobservedthat"[t]hetax
systemcouldnotfunctionifdenominationswereallowedtochallengethetaxsystembecausetaxpayments
werespentinamannerthatviolatestheirreligiousbelief."Ibid.seeOCentro,546U.S.,at435.
13/31
13/6/2016
Leewasafreeexercise,notaRFRA,case,butiftheissueinLeewereanalyzedundertheRFRAframework,
thefundamentalpointwouldbethattheresimplyisnolessrestrictivealternativetothecategoricalrequirement
topaytaxes.Becauseoftheenormousvarietyofgovernmentexpendituresfundedbytaxdollars,allowing
taxpayerstowithholdaportionoftheirtaxobligationsonreligiousgroundswouldleadtochaos.Recognizing
exemptionsfromthecontraceptivemandateisverydifferent.ACAdoesnotcreatealargenationalpooloftax
revenueforuseinpurchasinghealthcarecoverage.Rather,individualemployersliketheplaintiffspurchase
insurancefortheirownemployees.Andcontrarytotheprincipaldissent'scharacterization,theemployers'
contributionsdonotnecessarilyfunnelinto"undifferentiatedfunds."Post,at23.Theaccommodation
establishedbyHHSrequiresissuerstohaveamechanismbywhichto"segregatepremiumrevenuecollected
fromtheeligibleorganizationfromthemoniesusedtoprovidepaymentsforcontraceptiveservices."45CFR
147.131(c)(2)(ii).RecognizingareligiousaccommodationunderRFRAforparticularcoveragerequirements,
therefore,doesnotthreatentheviabilityofACA'scomprehensiveschemeinthewaythatrecognizingreligious
objectionstoparticularexpendituresfromgeneraltaxrevenueswould. 43
Initsfinalpages,theprincipaldissentrevealsthatitsfundamentalobjectiontotheclaimsoftheplaintiffsis
anobjectiontoRFRAitself.ThedissentworriesaboutforcingthefederalcourtstoapplyRFRAtoahostof
claimsmadebylitigantsseekingareligiousexemptionfromgenerallyapplicablelaws,andthedissent
expressesadesiretokeepthecourtsoutofthisbusiness.Seepost,at3235.Inmakingthisplea,thedissent
reiteratesapointmadeforcefullybytheCourtinSmith.494U.S.,at888889(applyingtheSherberttesttoall
freeexerciseclaims"wouldopentheprospectofconstitutionallyrequiredreligiousexemptionsfromcivic
obligationsofalmosteveryconceivablekind").ButCongress,inenactingRFRA,tookthepositionthat"the
compellinginteresttestassetforthinpriorFederalcourtrulingsisaworkabletestforstrikingsensible
balancesbetweenreligiouslibertyandcompetingpriorgovernmentalinterests."42U.S.C.2000bb(a)(5).The
wisdomofCongress'sjudgmentonthismatterisnotourconcern.OurresponsibilityistoenforceRFRAas
written,andunderthestandardthatRFRAprescribes,theHHScontraceptivemandateisunlawful.
* * *
Thecontraceptivemandate,asappliedtocloselyheldcorporations,violatesRFRA.Ourdecisiononthat
statutoryquestionmakesitunnecessarytoreachtheFirstAmendmentclaimraisedbyConestogaandthe
Hahns.
ThejudgmentoftheTenthCircuitinNo.13354isaffirmedthejudgmentoftheThirdCircuitinNo.13356
isreversed,andthatcaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.
Itissoordered.
KENNEDY,J.,concurring
573U.S.____(2014)
Nos.13354and13356
ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHETENTHCIRCUIT
[June30,2014]
JUSTICEKENNEDY,concurring.
Itseemstomeappropriate,injoiningtheCourt'sopinion,toaddthesefewremarks.Attheoutsetitshouldbe
saidthattheCourt'sopiniondoesnothavethebreadthandsweepascribedtoitbytherespectfulandpowerful
dissent.TheCourtandthedissentdisagreeontheproperinterpretationoftheReligiousFreedomand
RestorationActof1993(RFRA),butdoagreeonthepurposeofthatstatute.42U.S.C.2000bbetseq.Itisto
ensurethatinterestsinreligiousfreedomareprotected.Ante,at56post,at89(GINSBURG,J.,dissenting).
Inourconstitutionaltradition,freedommeansthatallpersonshavetherighttobelieveorstrivetobelievein
adivinecreatorandadivinelaw.Forthosewhochoosethiscourse,freeexerciseisessentialinpreservingtheir
owndignityandinstrivingforaselfdefinitionshapedbytheirreligiousprecepts.Freeexerciseinthissense
implicatesmorethanjustfreedomofbelief.SeeCantwellv.Connecticut,310U.S.296,303(1940).Itmeans,
too,therighttoexpressthosebeliefsandtoestablishone'sreligious(ornonreligious)selfdefinitioninthe
political,civic,andeconomiclifeofourlargercommunity.Butinacomplexsocietyandaneraofpervasive
governmentalregulation,definingtheproperrealmforfreeexercisecanbedifficult.Inthesecasestheplaintiffs
deemitnecessarytoexercisetheirreligiousbeliefswithinthecontextoftheirowncloselyheld,forprofit
corporations.TheyclaimprotectionunderRFRA,thefederalstatutediscussedwithcareandindetailinthe
Court'sopinion.
AstheCourtnotes,underourprecedents,RFRAimposesa"'stringenttest.'"Ante,at6(quotingCityof
Boernev.Flores,521U.S.507,533(1997)).TheGovernmentmustdemonstratethattheapplicationofa
substantialburdentoaperson'sexerciseofreligion"(1)isinfurtheranceofacompellinggovernmental
interestand(2)istheleastrestrictivemeansoffurtheringthatcompellinggovernmentalinterest."2000bb
1(b).
AstoRFRA'sfirstrequirement,theDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(HHS)makesthecasethat
themandateservestheGovernment'scompellinginterestinprovidinginsurancecoveragethatisnecessaryto
protectthehealthoffemaleemployees,coveragethatissignificantlymorecostlythanforamaleemployee.
Ante,at39see,e.g.,BriefforHHSinNo.13354,pp.1415.Therearemanymedicalconditionsforwhich
14/31
13/6/2016
pregnancyiscontraindicated.See,e.g.,id.,at47.ItisimportanttoconfirmthatapremiseoftheCourt's
opinionisitsassumptionthattheHHSregulationhereatissuefurthersalegitimateandcompellinginterestin
thehealthoffemaleemployees.Ante,at40.
ButtheGovernmenthasnotmadethesecondshowingrequiredbyRFRA,thatthemeansitusestoregulateis
theleastrestrictivewaytofurtheritsinterest.AstheCourt'sopinionexplains,therecordinthesecasesshows
thatthereisanexisting,recognized,workable,andalreadyimplementedframeworktoprovidecoverage.That
frameworkisonethatHHShasitselfdevised,thattheplaintiffshavenotcriticizedwithaspecificobjection
thathasbeenconsideredindetailbythecourtsinthislitigation,andthatislessrestrictivethanthemeans
challengedbytheplaintiffsinthesecases.Ante,at910,andn.9,4344.
ThemeanstheGovernmentchoseistheimpositionofadirectmandateontheemployersinthesecases.
Ante,at89.ButinotherinstancestheGovernmenthasallowedthesamecontraceptioncoverageinissuehere
tobeprovidedtoemployeesofnonprofitreligiousorganizations,asanaccommodationtothereligious
objectionsofthoseentities.Seeante,at910,andn.9,4344.Theaccommodationworksbyrequiring
insurancecompaniestocover,withoutcostsharing,contraceptioncoverageforfemaleemployeeswhowishit.
ThataccommodationequallyfurtherstheGovernment'sinterestbutdoesnotimpingeontheplaintiffs'religious
beliefs.Seeante,at44.
OnthisrecordandasexplainedbytheCourt,theGovernmenthasnotmetitsburdenofshowingthatit
cannotaccommodatetheplaintiffs'similarreligiousobjectionsunderthisestablishedframework.RFRAis
inconsistentwiththeinsistenceofanagencysuchasHHSondistinguishingbetweendifferentreligious
believersburdeningonewhileaccommodatingtheotherwhenitmaytreatbothequallybyofferingbothof
themthesameaccommodation.
ThepartieswhoweretheplaintiffsintheDistrictCourtsarguethattheGovernmentcouldpayforthe
methodsthatarefoundobjectionable.BriefforRespondentsinNo.13354,p.58.Indiscussingthisalternative,
theCourtdoesnotaddresswhethertheproperresponsetoalegitimateclaimforfreedominthehealthcare
arenaisfortheGovernmenttocreateanadditionalprogram.Ante,at4143.TheCourtproperlydoesnotresolve
whetheronefreedomshouldbeprotectedbycreatingincentivesforadditionalgovernmentconstraints.Inthese
cases,itistheCourt'sunderstandingthatanaccommodationmaybemadetotheemployerswithoutimposition
ofawholenewprogramorburdenontheGovernment.AstheCourtmakesclear,thisisnotacasewhereitcan
beestablishedthatitisdifficulttoaccommodatethegovernment'sinterest,andinfactthemechanismfordoing
soisalreadyinplace.Ante,at4344.
"[T]heAmericancommunityistoday,asitlonghasbeen,arichmosaicofreligiousfaiths."TownofGreece
v.Galloway,572U.S.___,___(2014)(KAGAN,J.,dissenting)(slipop.,at15).AmongthereasonstheUnited
Statesissoopen,sotolerant,andsofreeisthatnopersonmayberestrictedordemeanedbygovernmentin
exercisinghisorherreligion.Yetneithermaythatsameexerciseundulyrestrictotherpersons,suchas
employees,inprotectingtheirowninterests,intereststhelawdeemscompelling.Inthesecasesthemeansto
reconcilethosetwoprioritiesareathandintheexistingaccommodationtheGovernmenthasdesigned,
identified,andusedforcircumstancescloselyparalleltothosepresentedhere.RFRArequirestheGovernment
tousethislessrestrictivemeans.AstheCourtexplains,thisexistingmodel,designedpreciselyforthis
problem,mightwellsufficetodistinguishtheinstantcasesfrommanyothersinwhichitismoredifficultand
expensivetoaccommodateagovernmentalprogramtocountlessreligiousclaimsbasedonanallegedstatutory
rightoffreeexercise.Ante,at4546.
ForthesereasonsandothersputforthbytheCourt,Ijoinitsopinion.
GINSBURG,J.,dissenting
573U.S.____(2014)
Nos.13354and13356
[June30,2014]
JUSTICEGINSBURG,withwhomJUSTICESOTOMAYOR joins,andwithwhomJUSTICEBREYER andJUSTICE
KAGANjoinastoallbutPartIIIC1,dissenting.
Inadecisionofstartlingbreadth,theCourtholdsthatcommercialenterprises,includingcorporations,along
withpartnershipsandsoleproprietorships,canoptoutofanylaw(savingonlytaxlaws)theyjudge
incompatiblewiththeirsincerelyheldreligiousbeliefs.Seeante,at1649.Compellinggovernmentalinterests
inuniformcompliancewiththelaw,anddisadvantagesthatreligionbasedoptoutsimposeonothers,holdno
sway,theCourtdecides,atleastwhenthereisa"lessrestrictivealternative."Andsuchanalternative,theCourt
suggests,therealwayswillbewhenever,inlieuoftollinganenterpriseclaimingareligionbasedexemption,
thegovernment,i.e.,thegeneralpublic,canpickupthetab.Seeante,at4143. 1
TheCourtdoesnotpretendthattheFirstAmendment'sFreeExerciseClausedemandsreligionbased
accommodationssoextreme,forourdecisionsleavenodoubtonthatscore.Seeinfra,at68.Instead,theCourt
holdsthatCongress,intheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993(RFRA),42U.S.C.2000bbetseq.,
dictatedtheextraordinaryreligionbasedexemptionstoday'sdecisionendorses.IntheCourt'sview,RFRA
demandsaccommodationofaforprofitcorporation'sreligiousbeliefsnomattertheimpactthat
accommodationmayhaveonthirdpartieswhodonotsharethecorporationowners'religiousfaithinthese
15/31
13/6/2016
cases,thousandsofwomenemployedbyHobbyLobbyandConestogaordependentsofpersonsthose
corporationsemploy.PersuadedthatCongressenactedRFRAtoserveafarlessradicalpurpose,andmindfulof
thehavoctheCourt'sjudgmentcanintroduce,Idissent.
I
"TheabilityofwomentoparticipateequallyintheeconomicandsociallifeoftheNationhasbeenfacilitated
bytheirabilitytocontroltheirreproductivelives."PlannedParenthoodofSoutheasternPa.v.Casey,505U.S.
833,856(1992).Congressactedonthatunderstandingwhen,aspartofanationwideinsuranceprogram
intendedtobecomprehensive,itcalledforcoverageofpreventivecareresponsivetowomen'sneeds.Carrying
outCongress'direction,theDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices(HHS),inconsultationwithpublic
healthexperts,promulgatedregulationsrequiringgrouphealthplanstocoverallformsofcontraception
approvedbytheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA).Thegenesisofthiscoverageshouldenlightenthe
Court'sresolutionofthesecases.
A
TheAffordableCareAct(ACA),initsinitialform,specifiedthreecategoriesofpreventivecarethathealth
plansmustcoveratnoaddedcosttotheplanparticipantorbeneficiary. 2Particularservicesweretobe
recommendedbytheU.S.PreventiveServicesTaskForce,anindependentpanelofexperts.Theschemehada
largegap,howeveritleftoutpreventiveservicesthat"manywomen'shealthadvocatesandmedical
professionalsbelievearecriticallyimportant."155Cong.Rec.28841(2009)(statementofSen.Boxer).To
correctthisoversight,SenatorBarbaraMikulskiintroducedtheWomen'sHealthAmendment,whichaddedto
theACA'sminimumcoveragerequirementsanewcategoryofpreventiveservicesspecifictowomen'shealth.
Womenpaidsignificantlymorethanmenforpreventivecare,theamendment'sproponentsnotedinfact,
costbarriersoperatedtoblockmanywomenfromobtainingneededcareatall.See,e.g.,id.,at29070
(statementofSen.Feinstein)("Womenofchildbearingagespend68percentmoreinoutofpockethealthcare
coststhanmen.")id.,at29302(statementofSen.Mikulski)("copaymentsare[often]sohighthat[women]
avoidgetting[preventiveandscreeningservices]inthefirstplace").Andincreasedaccesstocontraceptive
services,thesponsorscomprehended,wouldyieldimportantpublichealthgains.See,e.g.,id.,at29768
(statementofSen.Durbin)("Thisbillwillexpandhealthinsurancecoveragetothevastmajorityof[the17
millionwomenofreproductiveageintheUnitedStateswhoareuninsured]....Thisexpandedaccesswill
reduceunintendedpregnancies.").
AsalteredbytheWomen'sHealthAmendment'spassage,theACArequiresnewinsuranceplanstoinclude
coveragewithoutcostsharingof"suchadditionalpreventivecareandscreenings...asprovidedforin
comprehensiveguidelinessupportedbytheHealthResourcesandServicesAdministration[(HRSA)],"aunitof
HHS.42U.S.C.300gg13(a)(4).Thuscharged,theHRSAdevelopedrecommendationsinconsultationwith
theInstituteofMedicine(IOM).See77Fed.Reg.87258726(2012). 3TheIOMconvenedagroupof
independentexperts,including"specialistsindiseaseprevention[and]women'shealth"thoseexperts
preparedareportevaluatingtheefficacyofanumberofpreventiveservices.IOM,ClinicalPreventionServices
forWomen:ClosingtheGaps2(2011)(hereinafterIOMReport).Consistentwiththefindingsof"[n]umerous
healthprofessionalassociations"andotherorganizations,theIOMexpertsdeterminedthatpreventive
coverageshouldincludethe"fullrange"ofFDAapprovedcontraceptivemethods.Id.,at10.Seealsoid.,at102
110.
Inmakingthatrecommendation,theIOM'sreportexpressedconcernssimilartothosevoicedby
congressionalproponentsoftheWomen'sHealthAmendment.Thereportnotedthedisproportionateburden
womencarriedforcomprehensivehealthservicesandtheadversehealthconsequencesofexcluding
contraceptionfrompreventivecareavailabletoemployeeswithoutcostsharing.See,e.g.,id.,at19("[W]omen
areconsistentlymorelikelythanmentoreportawiderangeofcostrelatedbarrierstoreceiving...medical
testsandtreatmentsandtofillingprescriptionsforthemselvesandtheirfamilies.")id.,at103104,107
(pregnancymaybecontraindicatedforwomenwithcertainmedicalconditions,forexample,somecongenital
heartdiseases,pulmonaryhypertension,andMarfansyndrome,andcontraceptivesmaybeusedtoreducerisk
ofendometrialcancer,amongotherseriousmedicalconditions)id.,at103(womenwithunintended
pregnanciesaremorelikelytoexperiencedepressionandanxiety,andtheirchildrenface"increasedoddsof
pretermbirthandlowbirthweight").
InlinewiththeIOM'ssuggestions,theHRSAadoptedguidelinesrecommendingcoverageof"[a]ll[FDA]
approvedcontraceptivemethods,sterilizationprocedures,andpatienteducationandcounselingforallwomen
withreproductivecapacity."4Thereafter,HHS,theDepartmentofLabor,andtheDepartmentofTreasury
promulgatedregulationsrequiringgrouphealthplanstoincludecoverageofthecontraceptiveservices
recommendedintheHRSAguidelines,subjecttocertainexceptions,describedinfra,at2527. 5Thisopinion
referstotheseregulationsasthecontraceptivecoveragerequirement.
B
WhiletheWomen'sHealthAmendmentsucceeded,acountermoveprovedunavailing.TheSenatevoted
downthesocalled"conscienceamendment,"whichwouldhaveenabledanyemployerorinsuranceproviderto
denycoveragebasedonitsasserted"religiousbeliefsormoralconvictions."158Cong.Rec.S539(Feb.9,2012)
seeid.,atS1162S1173(Mar.1,2012)(debateandvote). 6Thatamendment,SenatorMikulskiobserved,would
have"pu[t]thepersonalopinionofemployersandinsurersoverthepracticeofmedicine."Id.,atS1127(Feb.29,
2012).Rejectingthe"conscienceamendment,"Congresslefthealthcaredecisionsincludingthechoiceamong
contraceptivemethodsinthehandsofwomen,withtheaidoftheirhealthcareproviders.
II
AnyFirstAmendmentFreeExerciseClauseclaimHobbyLobbyorConestoga 7mightassertisforeclosedby
thisCourt'sdecisioninEmploymentDiv.,Dept.ofHumanResourcesofOre.v.Smith,494U.S.872(1990).In
16/31
13/6/2016
Smith,twomembersoftheNativeAmericanChurchweredismissedfromtheirjobsanddeniedunemployment
benefitsbecausetheyingestedpeyoteat,andasanessentialelementof,areligiousceremony.Oregonlaw
forbadetheconsumptionofpeyote,andthisCourt,relyingonthatprohibition,rejectedtheemployees'claim
thatthedenialofunemploymentbenefitsviolatedtheirfreeexerciserights.TheFirstAmendmentisnot
offended,Smithheld,when"prohibitingtheexerciseofreligion...isnottheobjectof[governmental
regulation]butmerelytheincidentaleffectofagenerallyapplicableandotherwisevalidprovision."Id.,at878
seeid.,at878879("anindividual'sreligiousbeliefs[donot]excusehimfromcompliancewithanotherwise
validlawprohibitingconductthattheStateisfreetoregulate").TheACA'scontraceptivecoveragerequirement
appliesgenerally,itis"otherwisevalid,"ittrainsonwomen'swellbeing,notontheexerciseofreligion,and
anyeffectithasonsuchexerciseisincidental.
EvenifSmithdidnotcontrol,theFreeExerciseClausewouldnotrequiretheexemptionHobbyLobbyand
Conestogaseek.Accommodationstoreligiousbeliefsorobservances,theCourthasclarified,mustnot
significantlyimpingeontheinterestsofthirdparties. 8
TheexemptionsoughtbyHobbyLobbyandConestogawouldoverridesignificantinterestsofthe
corporations'employeesandcovereddependents.Itwoulddenylegionsofwomenwhodonotholdtheir
employers'beliefsaccesstocontraceptivecoveragethattheACAwouldotherwisesecure.SeeCatholicCharities
ofSacramento,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt,32Cal.4th527,565,85P.3d67,93(2004)("Weareunawareofany
decisioninwhich...[theU.S.SupremeCourt]hasexemptedareligiousobjectorfromtheoperationofa
neutral,generallyapplicablelawdespitetherecognitionthattherequestedexemptionwoulddetrimentally
affecttherightsofthirdparties.").Insum,withrespecttofreeexerciseclaimsnolessthanfreespeechclaims,
"'[y]ourrighttoswingyourarmsendsjustwheretheotherman'snosebegins.'"Chafee,FreedomofSpeechin
WarTime,32Harv.L.Rev.932,957(1919).
III
A
LackingatenableclaimundertheFreeExerciseClause,HobbyLobbyandConestogarelyonRFRA,astatute
instructingthat"[g]overnmentshallnotsubstantiallyburdenaperson'sexerciseofreligioneveniftheburden
resultsfromaruleofgeneralapplicability"unlessthegovernmentshowsthatapplicationoftheburdenis"the
leastrestrictivemeans"tofurthera"compellinggovernmentalinterest."42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),(b)(2).In
RFRA,Congress"adopt[ed]astatutoryrulecomparabletotheconstitutionalrulerejectedinSmith."Gonzalesv.
OCentroEspritaBeneficenteUniodoVegetal,546U.S.418,424(2006).
RFRA'spurposeisspecificandwrittenintothestatuteitself.TheActwascraftedto"restorethecompelling
interesttestassetforthinSherbertv.Verner,374U.S.398(1963)andWisconsinv.Yoder,406U.S.205
(1972)andtoguaranteeitsapplicationinallcaseswherefreeexerciseofreligionissubstantiallyburdened."
2000bb(b)(1). 9Seealso2000bb(a)(5)("[T]hecompellinginteresttestassetforthinpriorFederalcourt
rulingsisaworkabletestforstrikingsensiblebalancesbetweenreligiouslibertyandcompetingprior
governmentalinterests.")ante,at48(agreeingthatthepreSmithcompellinginteresttestis"workable"and
"strike[s]sensiblebalances").
ThelegislativehistoryiscorrespondinglyemphaticonRFRA'saim.See,e.g.,S.Rep.No.103111,p.12
(1993)(hereinafterSenateReport)(RFRA'spurposewas"onlytooverturntheSupremeCourt'sdecisionin
Smith,"notto"unsettleotherareasofthelaw.")139Cong.Rec.26178(1993)(statementofSen.Kennedy)
(RFRAwas"designedtorestorethecompellinginteresttestfordecidingfreeexerciseclaims.").Inlinewiththis
restorativepurpose,CongressexpectedcourtsconsideringRFRAclaimsto"looktofreeexercisecasesdecided
priortoSmithforguidance."SenateReport8.SeealsoH.R.Rep.No.10388,pp.67(1993)(hereinafter
HouseReport)(same).Inshort,theActreinstatesthelawasitwaspriortoSmith,without"creat[ing]...new
rightsforanyreligiouspracticeorforanypotentiallitigant."139Cong.Rec.26178(statementofSen.
Kennedy).GiventheAct'smoderatepurpose,itishardlysurprisingthatRFRA'senactmentin1993provoked
littlecontroversy.SeeBriefforSenatorMurrayetal.asAmiciCuriae8(hereinafterSenatorsBrief)(RFRAwas
approvedbya97to3voteintheSenateandavoicevoteintheHouseofRepresentatives).
B
Despitetheseauthoritativeindications,theCourtseesRFRAasaboldinitiativedepartingfrom,ratherthan
restoring,preSmithjurisprudence.Seeante,at6,n.3,7,17,2527.TosupportitsconceptionofRFRAasa
measuredetachedfromthisCourt'sdecisions,onethatsetsanewcourse,theCourtpointsfirsttotheReligious
LandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.,whichaltered
RFRA'sdefinitionoftheterm"exerciseofreligion."RFRA,asoriginallyenacted,definedthattermtomean"the
exerciseofreligionundertheFirstAmendmenttotheConstitution."2000bb2(4)(1994ed.).Seeante,at67.
AsamendedbyRLUIPA,RFRA'sdefinitionnowincludes"anyexerciseofreligion,whetherornotcompelled
by,orcentralto,asystemofreligiousbelief."2000bb2(4)(2012ed.)(crossreferencing2000cc5).That
definitionalchange,accordingtotheCourt,reflects"anobviousefforttoeffectacompleteseparationfromFirst
Amendmentcaselaw."Ante,at7.
TheCourt'sreadingisnotplausible.RLUIPA'salterationclarifiesthatcourtsshouldnotquestionthe
centralityofaparticularreligiousexercise.ButtheamendmentinnowaysuggeststhatCongressmeantto
expandtheclassofentitiesqualifiedtomountreligiousaccommodationclaims,nordoesitrelievecourtsofthe
obligationtoinquirewhetheragovernmentactionsubstantiallyburdensareligiousexercise.SeeRasulv.
Myers,563F.3d527,535(CADC2009)(Brown,J.,concurring)("ThereisnodoubtthatRLUIPA'sdrafters,in
changingthedefinitionof'exerciseofreligion,'wantedtobroadenthescopeofthekindsofpracticesprotected
byRFRA,notincreasetheuniverseofindividualsprotectedbyRFRA.")H.R.Rep.No.106219,p.30(1999).
SeealsoGilardiv.UnitedStatesDept.ofHealthandHumanServs.,733F.3d1208,1211(CADC2013)(RFRA,
asamended,"providesuswithnohelpfuldefinitionof'exerciseofreligion.'")Hendersonv.Kennedy,265
F.3d1072,1073(CADC2001)("The[RLUIPA]amendmentsdidnotalterRFRA'sbasicprohibitionthatthe
'[g]overnmentshallnotsubstantiallyburdenaperson'sexerciseofreligion.'"). 10
17/31
13/6/2016
Next,theCourthighlightsRFRA'srequirementthatthegovernment,ifitsactionsubstantiallyburdensa
person'sreligiousobservance,mustdemonstratethatitchosetheleastrestrictivemeansforfurtheringa
compellinginterest."[B]yimposingaleastrestrictivemeanstest,"theCourtsuggests,RFRA"wentbeyond
whatwasrequiredbyourpreSmithdecisions."Ante,at17,n.18(citingCityofBoernev.Flores,521U.S.507
(1997)).Seealsoante,at6,n.3.ButasRFRA'sstatementsofpurposeandlegislativehistorymakeclear,
Congressintendedonlytorestore,nottoscraporalter,thebalancingtestasthisCourthadapplieditpre
Smith.Seesupra,at89.SeealsoSenateReport9(RFRA's"compellinginteresttestgenerallyshouldnotbe
construedmorestringentlyormorelenientlythanitwaspriortoSmith.")HouseReport7(same).
TheCongressthatpassedRFRAcorrectlyreadthisCourt'spreSmithcaselawasincludingwithinthe
"compellinginteresttest"a"leastrestrictivemeans"requirement.See,e.g.,SenateReport5("Where[a
substantial]burdenisplaceduponthefreeexerciseofreligion,theCourtruled[inSherbert],theGovernment
mustdemonstratethatitistheleastrestrictivemeanstoachieveacompellinggovernmentalinterest.").Andthe
viewthatthepreSmithtestincludeda"leastrestrictivemeans"requirementhadbeenairedintestimonybefore
theSenateJudiciaryCommitteebyexpertsonreligiousfreedom.See,e.g.,HearingonS.2969beforetheSenate
CommitteeontheJudiciary,102dCong.,2dSess.,7879(1993)(statementofProf.DouglasLaycock).
OurdecisioninCityofBoerne,itistrue,statesthattheleastrestrictivemeansrequirement"wasnotusedin
thepreSmithjurisprudenceRFRApurportedtocodify."Seeante,at6,n.3,17,n.18.Asjustindicated,
however,thatstatementdoesnotaccuratelyconveytheCourt'spreSmithjurisprudence.SeeSherbert,374U.S.,
at407("[I]twouldplainlybeincumbentuponthe[government]todemonstratethatnoalternativeformsof
regulationwouldcombat[theproblem]withoutinfringingFirstAmendmentrights.")Thomasv.ReviewBd.of
IndianaEmploymentSecurityDiv.,450U.S.707,718(1981)("Thestatemayjustifyaninroadonreligious
libertybyshowingthatitistheleastrestrictivemeansofachievingsomecompellingstateinterest.").Seealso
Berg,TheNewAttacksonReligiousFreedomLegislationandWhyTheyAreWrong,21CardozoL.Rev.415,
424(1999)("InBoerne,theCourterroneouslysaidthattheleastrestrictivemeanstest'wasnotusedinthepre
Smithjurisprudence.'"). 11
C
WithRFRA'srestorativepurposeinmind,IturntotheAct'sapplicationtotheinstantlawsuits.Thattask,in
viewofthepositionstakenbytheCourt,requiresconsiderationofseveralquestions,eachpotentiallydispositive
ofHobbyLobby'sandConestoga'sclaims:Doforprofitcorporationsrankamong"person[s]"who"exercise...
religion"?Assumingthattheydo,doesthecontraceptivecoveragerequirement"substantiallyburden"their
religiousexercise?Ifso,istherequirement"infurtheranceofacompellinggovernmentinterest"?Andlast,does
therequirementrepresenttheleastrestrictivemeansforfurtheringthatinterest?
MisguidedbyitserrantpremisethatRFRAmovedbeyondthepreSmithcaselaw,theCourtfaltersateach
stepofitsanalysis.
1
RFRA'scompellinginteresttest,asnoted,seesupra,at8,appliestogovernmentactionsthat"substantially
burdenaperson'sexerciseofreligion."42U.S.C.2000bb1(a)(emphasisadded).Thisreference,theCourt
submits,incorporatesthedefinitionof"person"foundintheDictionaryAct,1U.S.C.1,whichextendsto
"corporations,companies,associations,firms,partnerships,societies,andjointstockcompanies,aswellas
individuals."Seeante,at1920.TheDictionaryAct'sdefinition,however,controlsonlywhere"context"does
not"indicat[e]otherwise."1.Here,contextdoessoindicate.RFRAspeaksof"aperson'sexerciseofreligion."
42U.S.C.2000bb1(a)(emphasisadded).Seealso2000bb2(4),2000cc5(7)(a). 12Whetheracorporation
qualifiesasa"person"capableofexercisingreligionisaninquiryonecannotanswerwithoutreferencetothe
"fullbody"ofpreSmith"freeexercisecaselaw."Gilardi,733F.3d,at1212.Thereisinthatcaselawnosupport
forthenotionthatfreeexerciserightspertaintoforprofitcorporations.
Untilthislitigation,nodecisionofthisCourtrecognizedaforprofitcorporation'squalificationfora
religiousexemptionfromagenerallyapplicablelaw,whetherundertheFreeExerciseClauseorRFRA. 13The
absenceofsuchprecedentisjustwhatonewouldexpect,fortheexerciseofreligionischaracteristicofnatural
persons,notartificiallegalentities.AsChiefJusticeMarshallobservednearlytwocenturiesago,acorporation
is"anartificialbeing,invisible,intangible,andexistingonlyincontemplationoflaw."TrusteesofDartmouth
Collegev.Woodward,4Wheat.518,636(1819).Corporations,JusticeStevensmorerecentlyreminded,"have
noconsciences,nobeliefs,nofeelings,nothoughts,nodesires."CitizensUnitedv.FederalElectionComm'n,
558U.S.310,466(2010)(opinionconcurringinpartanddissentinginpart).
TheFirstAmendment'sfreeexerciseprotections,theCourthasindeedrecognized,shelterchurchesand
othernonprofitreligionbasedorganizations. 14"Formanyindividuals,religiousactivityderivesmeaningin
largemeasurefromparticipationinalargerreligiouscommunity,"and"furtheranceoftheautonomyof
religiousorganizationsoftenfurthersindividualreligiousfreedomaswell."CorporationofPresidingBishopof
ChurchofJesusChristofLatterdaySaintsv.Amos,483U.S.327,342(1987)(Brennan,J.,concurringin
judgment).TheCourt's"specialsolicitudetotherightsofreligiousorganizations,"HosannaTaborEvangelical
LutheranChurchandSchoolv.EEOC,565U.S.___,___(2012)(slipop.,at14),however,isjustthat.No
suchsolicitudeistraditionalforcommercialorganizations. 15Indeed,untiltoday,religiousexemptionshad
neverbeenextendedtoanyentityoperatingin"thecommercial,profitmakingworld."Amos,483U.S.,at
337. 16
Thereasonwhyishardlyobscure.Religiousorganizationsexisttofostertheinterestsofpersonssubscribing
tothesamereligiousfaith.Notsoofforprofitcorporations.Workerswhosustaintheoperationsofthose
corporationscommonlyarenotdrawnfromonereligiouscommunity.Indeed,bylaw,noreligionbased
criterioncanrestricttheworkforceofforprofitcorporations.See42U.S.C.2000e(b),2000e1(a),2000e
2(a)cf.TransWorldAirlines,Inc.v.Hardison,432U.S.63,8081(1977)(TitleVIIrequiresreasonable
accommodationofanemployee'sreligiousexercise,butsuchaccommodationmustnotcome"attheexpenseof
other[employees]").Thedistinctionbetweenacommunitymadeupofbelieversinthesamereligionandone
18/31
13/6/2016
embracingpersonsofdiversebeliefs,clearasitis,constantlyescapestheCourt'sattention. 17Onecanonly
wonderwhytheCourtshutsthiskeydifferencefromsight.
ReadingRFRA,astheCourtdoes,torequireextensionofreligionbasedexemptionstoforprofit
corporationssurelyisnotgroundedinthepreSmithprecedentCongresssoughttopreserve.HadCongress
intendedRFRAtoinitiateachangesohuge,aclarionstatementtothateffectlikelywouldhavebeenmadein
thelegislation.SeeWhitmanv.AmericanTruckingAssns.,Inc.,531U.S.457,468(2001)(Congressdoesnot
"hideelephantsinmouseholes").ThetextofRFRAmakesnosuchstatementandthelegislativehistorydoes
notsomuchasmentionforprofitcorporations.SeeHobbyLobbyStores,Inc.v.Sebelius,723F.3d1114,1169
(CA102013)(Briscoe,C.J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart)(legislativerecordlacks"anysuggestion
thatCongressforesaw,letaloneintendedthat,RFRAwouldcoverforprofitcorporations").SeealsoSenators
Brief1013(noneofthecasescitedinHouseorSenateJudiciaryCommitteereportsaccompanyingRFRA,or
mentionedduringfloorspeeches,recognizedthefreeexerciserightsofforprofitcorporations).
TheCourtnotesthatforprofitcorporationsmaysupportcharitablecausesandusetheirfundsforreligious
ends,andthereforequestionsthedistinctionbetweensuchcorporationsandreligiousnonprofitorganizations.
Seeante,at2025.Seealsoante,at3(KENNEDY,J.,concurring)(criticizingtheGovernmentfor"distinguishing
betweendifferentreligiousbelieversburdeningonewhileaccommodatingtheotherwhenitmaytreatboth
equallybyofferingbothofthemthesameaccommodation"). 18Again,theCourtforgetsthatreligious
organizationsexisttoserveacommunityofbelievers.Forprofitcorporationsdonotfitthatbill.Moreover,
historyisnotontheCourt'sside.Recognitionofthediscretecharactersof"ecclesiasticalandlay"corporations
datesbacktoBlackstone,see1W.Blackstone,CommentariesontheLawsofEngland458(1765),andwas
reiteratedbythisCourtcenturiesbeforetheenactmentoftheInternalRevenueCode.SeeTerrettv.Taylor,9
Cranch43,49(1815)(describingreligiouscorporations)TrusteesofDartmouthCollege,4Wheat.,at645
(discussing"eleemosynary"corporations,includingthose"createdforthepromotionofreligion").Toreiterate,
"forprofitcorporationsaredifferentfromreligiousnonprofitsinthattheyuselabortomakeaprofit,rather
thantoperpetuate[the]religiousvalue[s][sharedbyacommunityofbelievers]."Gilardi,733F.3d,at1242
(Edwards,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart)(emphasisdeleted).
CitingBraunfeldv.Brown,366U.S.599(1961),theCourtquestionswhy,if"asoleproprietorshipthatseeks
tomakeaprofitmayassertafreeexerciseclaim,[HobbyLobbyandConestoga]can't...dothesame?"Ante,at
22(footnoteomitted).Seealsoante,at1617.Butevenaccepting,arguendo,thepremisethatunincorporated
businessenterprisesmaygainreligiousaccommodationsundertheFreeExerciseClause,theCourt's
conclusionisunsound.Inasoleproprietorship,thebusinessanditsownerareoneandthesame.By
incorporatingabusiness,however,anindividualseparatesherselffromtheentityandescapespersonal
responsibilityfortheentity'sobligations.Onemightaskwhytheseparationshouldholdonlywhenitserves
theinterestofthosewhocontrolthecorporation.Inanyevent,Braunfeldishardlyimpressiveauthorityforthe
entitlementHobbyLobbyandConestogaseek.Thefreeexerciseclaimassertedtherewaspromptlyrejectedon
themerits.
TheCourt'sdeterminationthatRFRAextendstoforprofitcorporationsisboundtohaveuntowardeffects.
AlthoughtheCourtattemptstocabinitslanguagetocloselyheldcorporations,itslogicextendstocorporations
ofanysize,publicorprivate. 19LittledoubtthatRFRAclaimswillproliferate,fortheCourt'sexpansivenotionof
corporatepersonhoodcombinedwithitsothererrorsinconstruingRFRAinvitesforprofitentitiestoseek
religionbasedexemptionsfromregulationstheydeemoffensivetotheirfaith.
2
EvenifHobbyLobbyandConestogaweredeemedRFRA"person[s],"togainanexemption,theymust
demonstratethatthecontraceptivecoveragerequirement"substantiallyburden[s][their]exerciseofreligion."
42U.S.C.2000bb1(a).Congressnodoubtmeantthemodifier"substantially"tocarryweight.Intheoriginal
draftofRFRA,theword"burden"appearedunmodified.Theword"substantially"wasinsertedpursuanttoa
clarifyingamendmentofferedbySenatorsKennedyandHatch.See139Cong.Rec.26180.Inproposingthe
amendment,SenatorKennedystatedthatRFRA,inaccordwiththeCourt'spreSmithcaselaw,"doesnot
requiretheGovernmenttojustifyeveryactionthathassomeeffectonreligiousexercise."Ibid.
TheCourtbarelypausestoinquirewhetheranyburdenimposedbythecontraceptivecoveragerequirementis
substantial.Instead,itrestsontheGreens'andHahns'"belie[f]thatprovidingthecoveragedemandedbythe
HHSregulationsisconnectedtothedestructionofanembryoinawaythatissufficienttomakeitimmoralfor
themtoprovidethecoverage."Ante,at36. 20IagreewiththeCourtthattheGreenandHahnfamilies'religious
convictionsregardingcontraceptionaresincerelyheld.SeeThomas,450U.S.,at715(courtsarenotto
questionwhereanindividual"dr[aws]theline"indefiningwhichpracticesrunafoulofherreligiousbeliefs).
Seealso42U.S.C.2000bb1(a),2000bb2(4),2000cc5(7)(A). 21Butthosebeliefs,howeverdeeplyheld,do
notsufficetosustainaRFRAclaim.RFRA,properlyunderstood,distinguishesbetween"factualallegations
that[plaintiffs']beliefsaresincereandofareligiousnature,"whichacourtmustacceptastrue,andthe"legal
conclusion...that[plaintiffs']religiousexerciseissubstantiallyburdened,"aninquirythecourtmust
undertake.Kaemmerlingv.Lappin,553F.3d669,679(CADC2008).
ThatdistinctionisafacetofthepreSmithjurisprudenceRFRAincorporates.Bowenv.Roy,476U.S.693
(1986),isinstructive.There,theCourtrejectedafreeexercisechallengetotheGovernment'suseofaNative
Americanchild'sSocialSecuritynumberforpurposesofadministeringbenefitprograms.Withoutquestioning
thesincerityofthefather'sreligiousbeliefthat"useof[hisdaughter'sSocialSecurity]numbermayharm[her]
spirit,"theCourtconcludedthattheGovernment'sinternalusesofthatnumber"place[d][no]restrictionon
what[thefather]maybelieveorwhathemaydo."Id.,at699.Recognizingthatthefather's"religiousviewsmay
notaccept"thepositionthatthechallengedusesconcernedonlytheGovernment'sinternalaffairs,theCourt
explainedthat"fortheadjudicationofaconstitutionalclaim,theConstitution,ratherthananindividual's
religion,mustsupplytheframeofreference."Id.,at700701,n.6.SeealsoHernandezv.Commissioner,490
U.S.680,699(1989)(distinguishingbetween,ontheonehand,"question[s][of]thecentralityofparticular
beliefsorpracticestoafaith,orthevalidityofparticularlitigants'interpretationsofthosecreeds,"and,onthe
other,"whethertheallegedburdenimposed[bythechallengedgovernmentaction]isasubstantialone").
19/31
13/6/2016
Inattentivetothisguidance,today'sdecisionelidesentirelythedistinctionbetweenthesincerityofa
challenger'sreligiousbeliefandthesubstantialityoftheburdenplacedonthechallenger.
UndertakingtheinquirythattheCourtforgoes,Iwouldconcludethattheconnectionbetweenthefamilies'
religiousobjectionsandthecontraceptivecoveragerequirementistooattenuatedtorankassubstantial.The
requirementcarriesnocommandthatHobbyLobbyorConestogapurchaseorprovidethecontraceptivesthey
findobjectionable.Instead,itcallsonthecompaniescoveredbytherequirementtodirectmoneyinto
undifferentiatedfundsthatfinanceawidevarietyofbenefitsundercomprehensivehealthplans.Thoseplans,
inordertocomplywiththeACA,seesupra,at36,mustoffercontraceptivecoveragewithoutcostsharing,just
astheymustcoveranarrayofotherpreventiveservices.
Importantly,thedecisionswhethertoclaimbenefitsundertheplansaremadenotbyHobbyLobbyor
Conestoga,butbythecoveredemployeesanddependents,inconsultationwiththeirhealthcareproviders.
ShouldanemployeeofHobbyLobbyorConestogasharethereligiousbeliefsoftheGreensandHahns,sheisof
courseundernocompulsiontousethecontraceptivesinquestion.But"[n]oindividualdecisionbyanemployee
andherphysicianbeittousecontraception,treataninfection,orhaveahipreplacedisinanymeaningful
sense[heremployer's]decisionoraction."Grotev.Sebelius,708F.3d850,865(CA72013)(Rovner,J.,
dissenting).ItisdoubtfulthatCongress,whenitspecifiedthatburdensmustbe"substantia[l],"hadinminda
linkagethusinterruptedbyindependentdecisionmakers(thewomanandherhealthcounselor)standing
betweenthechallengedgovernmentactionandthereligiousexerciseclaimedtobeinfringed.Anydecisionto
usecontraceptivesmadebyawomancoveredunderHobbyLobby'sorConestoga'splanwillnotbepropelledby
theGovernment,itwillbethewoman'sautonomouschoice,informedbythephysiciansheconsults.
3
EvenifoneweretoconcludethatHobbyLobbyandConestogameetthesubstantialburdenrequirement,the
GovernmenthasshownthatthecontraceptivecoverageforwhichtheACAprovidesfurtherscompelling
interestsinpublichealthandwomen'swellbeing.Thoseinterestsareconcrete,specific,anddemonstratedbya
wealthofempiricalevidence.Torecapitulate,themandatedcontraceptioncoverageenableswomentoavoidthe
healthproblemsunintendedpregnanciesmayvisitonthemandtheirchildren.SeeIOMReport102107.The
coveragehelpssafeguardthehealthofwomenforwhompregnancymaybehazardous,evenlifethreatening.
SeeBriefforAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologistsetal.asAmiciCuriae1415.Andthe
mandatesecuresbenefitswhollyunrelatedtopregnancy,preventingcertaincancers,menstrualdisorders,and
pelvicpain.BriefforOvarianCancerNationalAllianceetal.asAmiciCuriae4,67,151678Fed.Reg.39872
(2013)IOMReport107.
ThatHobbyLobbyandConestogaresistcoverageforonly4ofthe20FDAapprovedcontraceptivesdoesnot
lessenthesecompellinginterests.Notably,thecorporationsexcludeintrauterinedevices(IUDs),devices
significantlymoreeffective,andsignificantlymoreexpensivethanothercontraceptivemethods.Seeid.,at
105. 22Moreover,theCourt'sreasoningappearstopermitcommercialenterpriseslikeHobbyLobbyand
Conestogatoexcludefromtheirgrouphealthplansallformsofcontraceptives.SeeTr.ofOralArg.3839
(counselforHobbyLobbyacknowledgedthathis"argument...wouldapplyjustaswelliftheemployersaid
'nocontraceptives'"(internalquotationmarksadded)).
PerhapsthegravityoftheinterestsatstakehasledtheCourttoassume,forpurposesofitsRFRAanalysis,
thatthecompellinginterestcriterionismetinthesecases.Seeante,at40. 23Itbearsnoteinthisregardthatthe
costofanIUDisnearlyequivalenttoamonth'sfulltimepayforworkersearningtheminimumwage,Brieffor
GuttmacherInstituteetal.asAmiciCuriae16thatalmostonethirdofwomenwouldchangetheir
contraceptivemethodifcostswerenotafactor,Frost&Darroch,FactorsAssociatedWithContraceptiveChoice
andInconsistentMethodUse,UnitedStates,2004,40PerspectivesonSexual&ReproductiveHealth94,98
(2008)andthatonlyonefourthofwomenwhorequestanIUDactuallyhaveoneinsertedafterfindingout
howexpensiveitwouldbe,Gariepy,Simon,Patel,Creinin,&Schwarz,TheImpactofOutofPocketExpenseon
IUDUtilizationAmongWomenWithPrivateInsurance,84Contraceptione39,e40(2011).SeealsoEisenberg,
supra,atS60(recentstudyfoundthatwomenwhofaceoutofpocketIUDcostsinexcessof$50were"11times
lesslikelytoobtainanIUDthanwomenwhohadtopaylessthan$50")Postlethwaite,Trussell,Zoolakis,
Shabear,&Petitti,AComparisonofContraceptiveProcurementPreandPostBenefitChange,76
Contraception360,361362(2007)(whenonehealthsystemeliminatedpatientcostsharingforIUDs,useof
thisformofcontraceptionmorethandoubled).
Steppingbackfromitsassumptionthatcompellinginterestssupportthecontraceptivecoveragerequirement,
theCourtnotesthatsmallemployersandgrandfatheredplansarenotsubjecttotherequirement.Ifthereisa
compellinginterestincontraceptivecoverage,theCourtsuggests,Congresswouldnothavecreatedthese
exclusions.Seeante,at3940.
Federalstatutesoftenincludeexemptionsforsmallemployers,andsuchprovisionshaveneverbeenheldto
underminetheinterestsservedbythesestatutes.See,e.g.,FamilyandMedicalLeaveActof1993,29U.S.C.
2611(4)(A)(i)(applicabletoemployerswith50ormoreemployees)AgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActof
1967,29U.S.C.630(b)(originallyexemptingemployerswithfewerthan50employees,81Stat.605,the
statutenowgovernsemployerswith20ormoreemployees)AmericansWithDisabilitiesAct,42U.S.C.
12111(5)(A)(applicabletoemployerswith15ormoreemployees)TitleVII,42U.S.C.2000e(b)(originally
exemptingemployerswithfewerthan25employees,seeArbaughv.Y&HCorp.,546U.S.500,505,n.2
(2006),thestatutenowgovernsemployerswith15ormoreemployees).
TheACA'sgrandfatheringprovision,42U.S.C.18011,allowsaphasinginperiodforcompliancewitha
numberoftheAct'srequirements(notjustthecontraceptivecoverageorotherpreventiveservicesprovisions).
Oncespecifiedchangesaremade,grandfatheredstatusceases.See45CFR147.140(g).HobbyLobby'sown
situationisillustrative.Bythetimethislitigationcommenced,HobbyLobbydidnothavegrandfatheredstatus.
AskedwhybytheDistrictCourt,HobbyLobby'scounselexplainedthatthe"grandfatheringrequirementsmean
thatyoucan'tmakeawholemenuofchangestoyourplanthatinvolvethingsliketheamountofcopays,the
amountofcoinsurance,deductibles,thatsortofthing."App.inNo.13354,pp.3940.Counselacknowledged
20/31
13/6/2016
that,"justbecauseofeconomicrealities,ourplanhastoshiftovertime.Imean,insuranceplans,aseveryone
knows,shif[t]overtime."Id.,at40. 24Thepercentageofemployeesingrandfatheredplansissteadily
declining,havingdroppedfrom56%in2011to48%in2012to36%in2013.KaiserFamilyFoundation&
HealthResearch&Educ.Trust,EmployerBenefits2013AnnualSurvey7,196.Inshort,farfromrankingasa
categoricalexemption,thegrandfatheringprovisionis"temporary,intendedtobeameansforgradually
transitioningemployersintomandatorycoverage."Gilardi,733F.3d,at1241(Edwards,J.,concurringinpart
anddissentinginpart).
TheCourtultimatelyacknowledgesacriticalpoint:RFRA'sapplication"musttakeadequateaccountofthe
burdensarequestedaccommodationmayimposeonnonbeneficiaries."Ante,at42,n.37(quotingCutterv.
Wilkinson,544U.S.709,720(2005)emphasisadded).Notradition,andnopriordecisionunderRFRA,
allowsareligionbasedexemptionwhentheaccommodationwouldbeharmfultoothershere,thevery
personsthecontraceptivecoveragerequirementwasdesignedtoprotect.Cf.supra,at78Princev.
Massachusetts,321U.S.158,177(1944)(Jackson,J.,dissenting)("[The]limitationswhichofnecessity
boundreligiousfreedom...begintooperatewheneveractivitiesbegintoaffectorcollidewithlibertiesofothers
orofthepublic.").
4
Afterassumingtheexistenceofcompellinggovernmentinterests,theCourtholdsthatthecontraceptive
coveragerequirementfailstosatisfyRFRA'sleastrestrictivemeanstest.ButtheGovernmenthasshownthat
thereisnolessrestrictive,equallyeffectivemeansthatwouldboth(1)satisfythechallengers'religious
objectionstoprovidinginsurancecoverageforcertaincontraceptives(whichtheybelievecauseabortions)and
(2)carryouttheobjectiveoftheACA'scontraceptivecoveragerequirement,toensurethatwomenemployees
receive,atnocosttothem,thepreventivecareneededtosafeguardtheirhealthandwellbeing.A"least
restrictivemeans"cannotrequireemployeestorelinquishbenefitsaccordedthembyfederallawinorderto
ensurethattheircommercialemployerscanadhereunreservedlytotheirreligioustenets.Seesupra,at78,
27. 25
Thenletthegovernmentpay(ratherthantheemployeeswhodonotsharetheiremployer'sfaith),theCourt
suggests."Themoststraightforward[alternative],"theCourtasserts,"wouldbefortheGovernmenttoassume
thecostofproviding...contraceptives...toanywomenwhoareunabletoobtainthemundertheirhealth
insurancepoliciesduetotheiremployers'religiousobjections."Ante,at41.TheACA,however,requires
coverageofpreventiveservicesthroughtheexistingemployerbasedsystemofhealthinsurance"sothat
[employees]faceminimallogisticalandadministrativeobstacles."78Fed.Reg.39888.Impedingwomen's
receiptofbenefits"byrequiringthemtotakestepstolearnabout,andtosignupfor,anew[governmentfunded
andadministered]healthbenefit"wasscarcelywhatCongresscontemplated.Ibid.Moreover,TitleXofthe
PublicHealthServiceAct,42U.S.C.300etseq.,"isthenation'sonlydedicatedsourceoffederalfundingfor
safetynetfamilyplanningservices."BriefforNationalHealthLawProgrametal.asAmiciCuriae23."Safety
netprogramslikeTitleXarenotdesignedtoabsorbtheunmetneedsof...insuredindividuals."Id.,at24.
Note,too,thatCongressdeclinedtowriteintolawthepreferentialtreatmentHobbyLobbyandConestoga
describeasalessrestrictivealternative.Seesupra,at6.
Andwhereisthestoppingpointtothe"letthegovernmentpay"alternative?Supposeanemployer'ssincerely
heldreligiousbeliefisoffendedbyhealthcoverageofvaccines,orpayingtheminimumwage,seeTonyand
SusanAlamoFoundationv.SecretaryofLabor,471U.S.290,303(1985),oraccordingwomenequalpayfor
substantiallysimilarwork,seeDolev.ShenandoahBaptistChurch,899F.2d1389,1392(CA41990)?Doesit
rankasalessrestrictivealternativetorequirethegovernmenttoprovidethemoneyorbenefittowhichthe
employerhasareligionbasedobjection?26BecausetheCourtcannoteasilyanswerthatquestion,itproposes
somethingelse:Extensiontocommercialenterprisesoftheaccommodationalreadyaffordedtononprofit
religionbasedorganizations.Seeante,at34,910,4345."Ataminimum,"accordingtotheCourt,suchan
approachwouldnot"impingeon[HobbyLobby'sandConestoga's]religiousbelief."Ante,at44.Ihavealready
discussedthe"specialsolicitude"generallyaccordednonprofitreligionbasedorganizationsthatexisttoservea
communityofbelievers,solicitudeneverbeforeaccordedtocommercialenterprisescomprisingemployeesof
diversefaiths.Seesupra,at1417.
Ultimately,theCourthedgesonitsproposaltoalignforprofitenterpriseswithnonprofitreligionbased
organizations."Wedonotdecidetodaywhether[the]approach[theopinionadvances]complieswithRFRAfor
purposesofallreligiousclaims."Ante,at44.CounselforHobbyLobbywassimilarlynoncommittal.Askedat
oralargumentwhethertheCourtproposedalternativewasacceptable, 27counselresponded:"Wehaven'tbeen
offeredthataccommodation,sowehaven'thadtodecidewhatkindofobjection,ifany,wewouldmaketothat."
Tr.ofOralArg.8687.
Conestogasuggeststhat,ifitsemployeeshadtoacquireandpayforthecontraceptives(towhichthe
corporationobjects)ontheirown,ataxcreditwouldqualifyasalessrestrictivealternative.SeeBrieffor
PetitionersinNo.13356,p.64.Ataxcredit,ofcourse,isonevarietyof"letthegovernmentpay."Inadditionto
departingfromtheexistingemployerbasedsystemofhealthinsurance,Conestoga'salternativewouldrequirea
womantoreachintoherownpocketinthefirstinstance,anditwoulddonothingforthewomantoopoortobe
aidedbyataxcredit.
Insum,inviewofwhatCongresssoughttoaccomplish,i.e.,comprehensivepreventivecareforwomen
furnishedthroughemployerbasedhealthplans,noneoftheprofferedalternativeswouldsatisfactorilyservethe
compellingintereststowhichCongressresponded.
IV
AmongthepathmarkingpreSmithdecisionsRFRApreservedisUnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.252(1982).
Lee,asoleproprietorengagedinfarmingandcarpentry,wasamemberoftheOldOrderAmish.Hesincerely
believedthatwithholdingSocialSecuritytaxesfromhisemployeesorpayingtheemployer'sshareofsuchtaxes
wouldviolatetheAmishfaith.ThisCourtheldthat,althoughtheobligationsimposedbytheSocialSecurity
21/31
13/6/2016
systemconflictedwithLee'sreligiousbeliefs,theburdenwasnotunconstitutional.Id.,at260261.Seealsoid.,
at258(recognizingtheimportantgovernmentalinterestinprovidinga"nationwide...comprehensive
insurancesystemwithavarietyofbenefitsavailabletoallparticipants,withcostssharedbyemployersand
employees"). 28TheGovernmenturgesthatLeeshouldcontrolthechallengesbroughtbyHobbyLobbyand
Conestoga.SeeBriefforRespondentsinNo.13356,p.18.Incontrast,today'sCourtdismissesLeeasatax
case.Seeante,at4647.Indeed,itwasataxcaseandtheCourtinLeehomedinon"[t]hedifficultyin
attemptingtoaccommodatereligiousbeliefsintheareaoftaxation."455U.S.,at259.
ButtheLeeCourtmadetwokeypointsonecannotconfinetotaxcases."Whenfollowersofaparticularsect
enterintocommercialactivityasamatterofchoice,"theCourtobserved,"thelimitstheyacceptontheirown
conductasamatterofconscienceandfaitharenottobesuperimposedonstatutoryschemeswhicharebinding
onothersinthatactivity."Id.,at261.Thestatutoryschemeofemployerbasedcomprehensivehealthcoverage
involvedinthesecasesissurelybindingonothersengagedinthesametradeorbusinessasthecorporate
challengershere,HobbyLobbyandConestoga.Further,theCourtrecognizedinLeethatallowingareligion
basedexemptiontoacommercialemployerwould"operat[e]toimposetheemployer'sreligiousfaithonthe
employees."Ibid. 29NodoubttheGreensandHahnsandallwhosharetheirbeliefsmaydeclinetoacquirefor
themselvesthecontraceptivesinquestion.Butthatchoicemaynotbeimposedonemployeeswhoholdother
beliefs.WorkingforHobbyLobbyorConestoga,inotherwords,shouldnotdepriveemployeesofthepreventive
careavailabletoworkersattheshopnextdoor, 30atleastintheabsenceofdirectionsfromtheLegislatureor
Administrationtodoso.
WhyshoulddecisionsofthisorderbemadebyCongressortheregulatoryauthority,andnotthisCourt?
HobbyLobbyandConestogasurelydonotstandaloneascommercialenterprisesseekingexemptionsfrom
generallyapplicablelawsonthebasisoftheirreligiousbeliefs.See,e.g.,Newmanv.PiggieParkEnterprises,
Inc.,256F.Supp.941,945(SC1966)(ownerofrestaurantchainrefusedtoserveblackpatronsbasedonhis
religiousbeliefsopposingracialintegration),aff'dinrelevantpartandrev'dinpartonothergrounds,377F.2d
433(CA41967),aff'dandmodifiedonothergrounds,390U.S.400(1968)InreMinnesotaexrel.McClure,
370N.W.2d844,847(Minn.1985)(bornagainChristianswhoownedcloselyheld,forprofithealthclubs
believedthattheBibleproscribedhiringorretainingan"individua[l]livingwithbutnotmarriedtoapersonof
theoppositesex,""ayoung,singlewomanworkingwithoutherfather'sconsentoramarriedwomanworking
withoutherhusband'sconsent,"andanyperson"antagonistictotheBible,"including"fornicatorsand
homosexuals"(internalquotationmarksomitted)),appealdismissed,478U.S.1015(1986)Elane
Photography,LLCv.Willock,2013NMSC040,___N.M.___,309P.3d53(forprofitphotographybusiness
ownedbyahusbandandwiferefusedtophotographalesbiancouple'scommitmentceremonybasedonthe
religiousbeliefsofthecompany'sowners),cert.denied,572U.S.___(2014).WouldRFRArequireexemptions
incasesofthisilk?Andifnot,howdoestheCourtdivinewhichreligiousbeliefsareworthyofaccommodation,
andwhicharenot?Isn'ttheCourtdisarmedfrommakingsuchajudgmentgivenitsrecognitionthat"courts
mustnotpresumetodetermine...theplausibilityofareligiousclaim"?Ante,at37.
WouldtheexemptiontheCourtholdsRFRAdemandsforemployerswithreligiouslygroundedobjectionsto
theuseofcertaincontraceptivesextendtoemployerswithreligiouslygroundedobjectionstobloodtransfusions
(Jehovah'sWitnesses)antidepressants(Scientologists)medicationsderivedfrompigs,includinganesthesia,
intravenousfluids,andpillscoatedwithgelatin(certainMuslims,Jews,andHindus)andvaccinations
(ChristianScientists,amongothers)?31AccordingtocounselforHobbyLobby,"eachoneofthesecases...
wouldhavetobeevaluatedonitsown...apply[ing]thecompellinginterestleastrestrictivealternativetest."
Tr.ofOralArg.6.Notmuchhelpthereforthelowercourtsboundbytoday'sdecision.
TheCourt,however,seesnothingtoworryabout.Today'scases,theCourtconcludes,are"concernedsolely
withthecontraceptivemandate.Ourdecisionshouldnotbeunderstoodtoholdthataninsurancecoverage
mandatemustnecessarilyfallifitconflictswithanemployer'sreligiousbeliefs.Othercoveragerequirements,
suchasimmunizations,maybesupportedbydifferentinterests(forexample,theneedtocombatthespreadof
infectiousdiseases)andmayinvolvedifferentargumentsabouttheleastrestrictivemeansofprovidingthem."
Ante,at46.ButtheCourthasassumed,forRFRApurposes,thattheinterestinwomen'shealthandwellbeing
iscompellingandhascomeupwithnomeansadequatetoservethatinterest,theonemotivatingCongressto
adopttheWomen'sHealthAmendment.
Thereisanoverridinginterest,Ibelieve,inkeepingthecourts"outofthebusinessofevaluatingtherelative
meritsofdifferingreligiousclaims,"Lee,455U.S.,at263,n.2(Stevens,J.,concurringinjudgment),orthe
sinceritywithwhichanassertedreligiousbeliefisheld.Indeed,approvingsomereligiousclaimswhile
deemingothersunworthyofaccommodationcouldbe"perceivedasfavoringonereligionoveranother,"thevery
"risktheEstablishmentClausewasdesignedtopreclude."Ibid.TheCourt,Ifear,hasventuredintoaminefield,
cf.Spencerv.WorldVision,Inc.,633F.3d723,730(CA92010)(O'Scannlain,J.,concurring),byits
immoderatereadingofRFRA.IwouldconfinereligiousexemptionsunderthatActtoorganizationsformed"for
areligiouspurpose,""engage[d]primarilyincarryingoutthatreligiouspurpose,"andnot"engaged...
substantiallyintheexchangeofgoodsorservicesformoneybeyondnominalamounts."Seeid.,at748
(Kleinfeld,J.,concurring).
* * *
Forthereasonsstated,IwouldreversethejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsfortheTenthCircuitandaffirm
thejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuit.
BREYER andKAGAN,JJ.,dissenting
573U.S.____(2014)
Nos.13354and13356
22/31
13/6/2016
[June30,2014]
JUSTICEBREYERandJUSTICEKAGAN,dissenting.
WeagreewithJUSTICEGINSBURGthattheplaintiffs'challengetothecontraceptivecoveragerequirementfails
onthemerits.Weneednotanddonotdecidewhethereitherforprofitcorporationsortheirownersmaybring
claimsundertheReligiousFreedomRestorationActof1993.Accordingly,wejoinallbutPartIIIC1ofJUSTICE
GINSBURG'sdissentingopinion.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote1
TogetherwithNo.13356,ConestogaWoodSpecialtiesCorp.etal.v.Burwell,SecretaryofHealthandHuman
Services,etal.,oncertioraritotheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuit.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote1
Seealsopost,at8("TheexemptionsoughtbyHobbyLobbyandConestoga...woulddeny[theiremployees]
accesstocontraceptivecoveragethattheACAwouldotherwisesecure")
Footnote2
TheActdefines"government"toincludeany"department"or"agency"oftheUnitedStates.2000bb2(1).
Footnote3
InCityofBoernev.Flores,521U.S.,507(1997),wewrotethatRFRA's"leastrestrictivemeansrequirement
wasnotusedinthepreSmithjurisprudenceRFRApurportedtocodify."Id.,at509.Onthisunderstandingof
ourpreSmithcases,RFRAdidmorethanmerelyrestorethebalancingtestusedintheSherbertlineofcasesit
providedevenbroaderprotectionforreligiouslibertythanwasavailableunderthosedecisions.
Footnote4
See,e.g.,Hankinsv.Lyght,441F.3d96,108(CA22006)Guamv.Guerrero,290F.3d1210,1220(CA9
2002).
Footnote5
Theprincipaldissentappearstocontendthatthisruleofconstructionshouldapplyonlywhendefiningthe
"exerciseofreligion"inanRLUIPAcase,butnotinaRFRAcase.Seepost,at11,n.10.Thatargumentis
plainlywrong.Underthisruleofconstruction,thephrase"exerciseofreligion,"asitappearsinRLUIPA,must
beinterpretedbroadly,andRFRAstatesthatthesamephrase,asusedinRFRA,means"religiousexercis[e]as
definedin[RLUIPA]."42U.S.C.2000bb2(4).Itnecessarilyfollowsthatthe"exerciseofreligion"under
RFRAmustbegiventhesamebroadmeaningthatappliesunderRLUIPA.
Footnote6
Wewilluse"BriefforHHS"torefertotheBriefforPetitionersinNo.13354andtheBriefforRespondentsin
No.13356.ThefederalpartiesaretheDepartmentsofHHS,Treasury,andLabor,andtheSecretariesofthose
Departments.
Footnote7
Onlineathttp://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forwomen/freepublications/ucm313215.htm.The
ownersofthecompaniesinvolvedinthesecasesandotherswhobelievethatlifebeginsatconceptionregard
thesefourmethodsascausingabortions,butfederalregulations,whichdefinepregnancyasbeginningat
implantation,see,e.g.,62Fed.Reg.8611(1997)45CFR46.202(f)(2013),donotsoclassifythem.
Footnote8
Inthecaseofselfinsuredreligiousorganizationsentitledtotheaccommodation,thethirdpartyadministrator
oftheorganizationmust"provideorarrangepaymentsforcontraceptiveservices"fortheorganization's
employeeswithoutimposinganycostsharingrequirementsontheeligibleorganization,itsinsuranceplan,or
itsemployeebeneficiaries.78Fed.Reg.39893(tobecodifiedin26CFR54.98152713A(b)(2)).The
regulationsestablishamechanismforthesethirdpartyadministratorstobecompensatedfortheirexpensesby
obtainingareductioninthefeepaidbyinsurerstoparticipateinthefederallyfacilitatedexchanges.See78Fed.
Reg.39893(tobecodifiedin26CFR54.98152713A(b)(3)).HHSbelievesthatthesefeereductionswillnot
materiallyaffectfundingoftheexchangesbecause"paymentsforcontraceptiveserviceswillrepresentonlya
smallportionoftotal[exchange]userfees."78Fed.Reg.39882.
23/31
13/6/2016
Footnote9
Inaseparatechallengetothisframeworkforreligiousnonprofitorganizations,theCourtrecentlyorderedthat,
pendingappeal,theeligibleorganizationsbepermittedtooptoutofthecontraceptivemandatebyproviding
writtennotificationoftheirobjectionstotheSecretaryofHHS,ratherthantotheirinsuranceissuersorthird
partyadministrators.SeeLittleSistersofthePoorv.Sebelius,571U.S.___(2014).
Footnote10
WhiletheGovernmentpredictsthatthisnumberwilldeclineovertime,thetotalnumberofAmericansworking
foremployerstowhomthecontraceptivemandatedoesnotapplyisstillsubstantial,andthereisnolegal
requirementthatgrandfatheredplanseverbephasedout.
Footnote11
Onlineathttp://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/health_reform_for_small_businesses.pdf.
Footnote12
MennoniteChurchUSA,StatementonAbortion,onlineathttp://www.mennoniteusa.org/resource
center/resources/statementsandresolutions/statementonabortion/.
Footnote13
TheHahnsandConestogaalsoclaimedthatthecontraceptivemandateviolatestheFifthAmendmentandthe
AdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.553,butthoseclaimsarenotbeforeus.
Footnote14
See,e.g.,WebMDHealthNews,NewMorningAfterPillEllaWinsFDAApproval,onlineat
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birthcontrol/news/20100813/newmorningafterpillellawinsfdaapproval.
Footnote15
TheGreensoperateHobbyLobbyandMardelthroughamanagementtrust,ofwhicheachmemberofthe
familyservesastrustee.723F.3d1114,1122(CA102013).Thefamilyprovidedthatthetrustwouldalsobe
governedaccordingtotheirreligiousprinciples.Ibid.
Footnote16
TheyalsoraisedaclaimundertheAdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.553.
Footnote17
GivenitsRFRAruling,thecourtdeclinedtoaddresstheplaintiffs'freeexerciseclaimorthequestionwhether
theGreenscouldbringRFRAclaimsasindividualownersofHobbyLobbyandMardel.Fourjudges,however,
concludedthattheGreenscoulddoso,see723F.3d,at1156(Gorsuch,J.,concurring)id.,at1184(Matheson,
J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart),andthreeofthosejudgeswouldhavegrantedplaintiffsa
preliminaryinjunction,seeid.,at1156(Gorsuch,J.,concurring).
Footnote18
Asdiscussed,n.3,supra,inCityofBoernewestatedthatRFRA,byimposingaleastrestrictivemeanstest,
wentbeyondwhatwasrequiredbyourpreSmithdecisions.Althoughtheauthoroftheprincipaldissentjoined
theCourt'sopinioninCityofBoerne,shenowclaimsthatthestatementwasincorrect.Post,at12.Forpresent
purposes,itisunnecessarytoadjudicatethisdispute.EvenifRFRAsimplyrestoredthestatusquoante,thereis
noreasontobelieve,asHHSandthedissentseemtosuggest,thatthelawwasmeanttobelimitedtosituations
thatfallsquarelywithintheholdingsofpreSmithcases.Seeinfra,at2528.
Footnote19
Cf.BriefforFederalPetitionersinOCentro,O.T.2004,No.041084,p.II(statingthattheorganizational
respondentwas"aNewMexicoCorporation")BriefforFederalRespondentinHosannaTabor,O.T.2011,No.
10553,p.3(statingthatthepetitionerwasan"ecclesiasticalcorporation").
Footnote20
NotonlydoestheGovernmentconcedethattheterm"persons"inRFRAincludesnonprofitcorporations,it
goesfurtherandappearstoconcedethatthetermmightalsoencompassotherartificialentities,namely,
generalpartnershipsandunincorporatedassociations.SeeBriefforHHSinNo.13354,at28,40.
Footnote21
AlthoughtheprincipaldissentseemstothinkthatJusticeBrennan'sstatementinAmosprovidesagroundfor
holdingthatforprofitcorporationsmaynotassertfreeexerciseclaims,thatwasnotJusticeBrennan'sview.
SeeGallagherv.CrownKosherSuperMarketofMass.,Inc.,366U.S.617,642(1961)(dissentingopinion)
infra,at2627.
Footnote22
ItisrevealingthattheprincipaldissentcannotevenbringitselftoacknowledgethatBraunfeldwascorrectin
entertainingthemerchants'claims.Seepost,at19(dismissingtherelevanceofBraunfeldinpartbecause"[t]he
24/31
13/6/2016
freeexerciseclaimassertedtherewaspromptlyrejectedonthemerits").
Footnote23
See,e.g.,724F.3d,at385("Wedonotseehowaforprofit,'artificialbeing,'...thatwascreatedtomake
money"couldexercisereligion)Grotev.Sebelius,708F.3d850,857(CA72013)(Rovner,J.dissenting)("So
farasitappears,themissionofGroteIndustries,likethatofanyotherforprofit,secularbusiness,istomake
moneyinthecommercialsphere")AutocamCorp.v.Sebelius,730F.3d618,626(CA72013)("Congressdid
notintendtoincludecorporationsprimarilyorganizedforsecular,profitseekingpurposesas'persons'under
RFRA")seealso723F.3d,at11711172(Briscoe,C.J.,dissenting)("[T]hespecificpurposeforwhich[a
corporation]iscreatedmattersgreatlytohowitwillbecategorizedandtreatedunderthelaw"and"itis
undisputedthatHobbyLobbyandMardelareforprofitcorporationsfocusedonsellingmerchandiseto
consumers").
Theprincipaldissentmakesasimilarpoint,statingthat"[f]orprofitcorporationsaredifferentfrom
religiousnonprofitsinthattheyuselabortomakeaprofit,ratherthantoperpetuatethereligiousvaluesshared
byacommunityofbelievers."Post,at1819(internalquotationmarksomitted).Thefirsthalfofthisstatement
isatautologyforprofitcorporationsdoindeeddifferfromnonprofitsinsofarastheyseektomakeaprofitfor
theirowners,butthesecondpartisfactuallyuntrue.Astheactivitiesoftheforprofitcorporationsinvolvedin
thesecasesshow,someforprofitcorporationsdoseek"toperpetuatethereligiousvaluesshared,"inthese
cases,bytheirowners.Conestoga'sVisionandValuesStatementdeclaresthatthecompanyisdedicatedto
operating"in[a]mannerthatreflectsourChristianheritageandthehighestethicalandmoralprinciplesof
business."App.inNo.13356,p.94.Similarly,HobbyLobby'sstatementofpurposeproclaimsthatthe
company"iscommittedto...HonoringtheLordinallwedobyoperating...inamannerconsistentwith
Biblicalprinciples."App.inNo.13354,p.135.Thedissentalsobelievesthathistoryisnotonoursidebecause
evenBlackstonerecognizedthedistinctionbetween"ecclesiasticalandlay"corporations.Post,at18.What
Blackstoneillustrates,however,isthatdatingbackto1765,therewasnosharpdivideamongcorporationsin
theircapacitytoexercisereligionBlackstonerecognizedthatevenwhathetermed"lay"corporationsmight
serve"thepromotionofpiety."1W.Blackstone,CommentariesontheLawofEngland458459(1765).And
whatevermayhavebeenthecaseatthetimeofBlackstone,moderncorporatelaw(andthelawoftheStatesin
whichthesethreecompaniesareincorporated)allowsforprofitcorporationsto"perpetuat[e]religiousvalues."
Footnote24
See,e.g.,M.Sanders,JointVenturesInvolvingTaxExemptOrganizations555(4thed.2013)(describing
Google.org,which"advance[s]itscharitablegoals"whileoperatingasaforprofitcorporationtobeableto
"investinforprofitendeavors,lobbyforpoliciesthatsupportitsphilanthropicgoals,andtapGoogle's
innovativetechnologyandworkforce"(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted))cf.26CFR1.501(c)
(3)1(c)(3).
Footnote25
SeeBenefitCorpInformationCenter,onlineathttp://www.benefitcorp.net/statebystatelegislativestatus
e.g.,Va.CodeAnn.13.1787,13.1626,13.1782(Lexis2011)("Abenefitcorporationshallhaveasoneofits
purposesthepurposeofcreatingageneralpublicbenefit,"and"mayidentifyoneormorespecificpublicbenefits
thatitisthepurposeofthebenefitcorporationtocreate....Thispurposeisinadditionto[thepurposeof
engaginginanylawfulbusiness].""'Specificpublicbenefit'meansabenefitthatservesoneormorepublic
welfare,religious,charitable,scientific,literary,oreducationalpurposes,orotherpurposeorbenefitbeyondthe
strictinterestoftheshareholdersofthebenefitcorporation....")S.C.CodeAnn.3338300(2012Cum.
Supp.),333101(2006),3338130(2012Cum.Supp.)(similar).
Footnote26
SeeBriefforAppellantsinGallagher,O.T.1960No.11,pp.16,2831(arguingthatcorporation"hasno
'religiousbelief'or'religiousliberty,'andhadnostandingincourttoassertthatitsfreeexerciseofreligionwas
impaired").
Footnote27
Theprincipaldissentpointsoutthat"theexemptioncodifiedin238n(a)wasnotenacteduntilthreeyears
afterRFRA'spassage."Post,at16,n.15.ThedissenttakesthistomeanthatRFRAdidnot,infact,"ope[n]all
statutoryschemestoreligionbasedchallengesbyforprofitcorporations"becauseifithad"therewouldbeno
needforastatutespecific,postRFRAexemptionofthissort."Ibid.
Thisargumentfailstorecognizethattheprotectionprovidedby238n(a)differssignificantlyfromthe
protectionprovidedbyRFRA.Section238n(a)flatlyprohibitsdiscriminationagainstacoveredhealthcare
facilityforrefusingtoengageincertainactivitiesrelatedtoabortion.Ifacoveredhealthcarefacilitychallenged
suchdiscriminationunderRFRA,bycontrast,thediscriminationwouldbeunlawfulonlyifacourtconcluded,
amongotherthings,thattherewasalessrestrictivemeansofachievinganycompellinggovernmentinterest.
Inaddition,thedissent'sargumentprovestoomuch.Section238n(a)appliesevenlyto"anyhealthcare
entity"whetheritisareligiousnonprofitentityoraforprofitentity.ThereisnodisputethatRFRAprotects
religiousnonprofitcorporations,soif238n(a)wereredundantasappliedtoforprofitcorporations,itwould
beequallyredundantasappliedtononprofits.
Footnote28
ToqualifyforRFRA'sprotection,anassertedbeliefmustbe"sincere"acorporation'spretextualassertionofa
religiousbeliefinordertoobtainanexemptionforfinancialreasonswouldfail.Cf.,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.
Quaintance,608F.3d717,718719(CA102010).
25/31
13/6/2016
Footnote29
See,e.g.,Ochsv.Thalacker,90F.3d293,296(CA81996)Greenv.White,525F.Supp.81,8384(EDMo.
1981)Abatev.Walton,1996WL5320,*5(CA9,Jan.5,1996)Wintersv.State,549N.W.2d819820(Iowa
1996).
Footnote30
Theprincipaldissentattachessignificancetothefactthatthe"Senatevoteddown[a]socalled'conscience
amendment,'whichwouldhaveenabledanyemployerorinsuranceprovidertodenycoveragebasedonits
assertedreligiousbeliefsormoralconvictions."Post,at6.Thedissentwouldevidentlygleanfromthatvotean
intentbytheSenatetoprohibitforprofitcorporateemployersfromrefusingtooffercontraceptivecoveragefor
religiousreasons,regardlessofwhetherthecontraceptivemandatecouldpassmusterunderRFRA'sstandards.
Butthatisnottheonlyplausibleinferencefromthefailedamendmentoreventhemostlikely.Foronething,
thetextoftheamendmentwas"writtensobroadlythatitwouldallowanyemployertodenyanyhealthservice
toanyAmericanforvirtuallyanyreasonnotjustforreligiousobjections."158Cong.Rec.S1165(Mar.1,2012)
(emphasisadded).Moreover,theamendmentwouldhaveauthorizedablanketexemptionforreligiousormoral
objectorsitwouldnothavesubjectedreligiousbasedobjectionstothejudicialscrutinycalledforbyRFRA,in
whichacourtmustconsidernotonlytheburdenofarequirementonreligiousadherents,butalsothe
government'sinterestandhownarrowlytailoredtherequirementis.Itisthusperfectlyreasonabletobelieve
thattheamendmentwasvoteddownbecauseitextendedmorebroadlythanthepreexistingprotectionsof
RFRA.Andinanyevent,evenifarejectedamendmenttoabillcouldberelevantinothercontexts,itsurely
cannotberelevanthere,becauseany"FederalstatutorylawadoptedafterNovember16,1993issubjectto
[RFRA]unlesssuchlawexplicitlyexcludessuchapplicationbyreferenceto[RFRA]."42U.S.C.2000bb3(b)
(emphasisadded).Itisnotplausibletofindsuchanexplicitreferenceinthemeagerlegislativehistoryon
whichthedissentrelies.
Footnote31
Indeed,oneofHHS'sstatedreasonsforestablishingthereligiousaccommodationwasto"encourag[e]eligible
organizationstocontinuetoofferhealthcoverage."78Fed.Reg.39882(2013)(emphasisadded).
Footnote32
Attemptingtocompensatefordroppedinsurancebyraisingwageswouldalsopresentadministrative
difficulties.Inordertoprovidefullcompensationforemployees,thecompanieswouldhavetocalculatethe
valuetoemployeesoftheconvenienceofretainingtheiremployerprovidedcoverageandthusbeingsparedthe
taskofattemptingtofindandsignupforacomparableplanonanexchange.Andbecausesomebutnotallof
thecompanies'employeesmayqualifyforsubsidiesonanexchange,itwouldbenearlyimpossibletocalculate
asalaryincreasethatwouldaccuratelyrestorethestatusquoanteforallemployees.
Footnote33
ThisargumentisnoteasytosquarewiththepositiontakenbyHHSinprovidingexemptionsfromthe
contraceptivemandateforreligiousemployers,suchaschurches,thathavetheverysamereligiousobjections
astheHahnsandGreensandtheircompanies.Theconnectionbetweenwhatthesereligiousemployerswould
berequiredtodoifnotexempted(provideinsurancecoverageforparticularcontraceptives)andtheultimate
eventthattheyfindmorallywrong(destructionofanembryo)isexactlythesame.Nevertheless,asdiscussed,
HHSandtheLaborandTreasuryDepartmentsauthorizedtheexemptionfromthecontraceptivemandateof
grouphealthplansofcertainreligiousemployers,andlaterexpandedtheexemptiontoincludecertain
nonprofitorganizationswithreligiousobjectionstocontraceptivecoverage.78Fed.Reg.39871.Whenthis
wasdone,theGovernmentmadeclearthatitsobjectivewasto"protec[t]"thesereligiousobjectors"fromhaving
tocontract,arrange,pay,orreferforsuchcoverage."Ibid.Thoseexemptionswouldbehardtounderstandifthe
plaintiffs'objectionsherewerenotsubstantial.
Footnote34
See,e.g.,Oderberg,TheEthicsofCooperationinWrongdoing,inModernMoralPhilosophy203228(A.
O'Heared.2004)T.Higgins,ManasMan:TheScienceandArtofEthics353,355(1949)("Thegeneral
principlesgoverningcooperation"inwrongdoingi.e.,"physicalactivity(oritsomission)bywhichaperson
assistsintheevilactofanotherwhoistheprincipalagent""presenttroublesomedifficultiesinapplication")1
H.Davis,MoralandPastoralTheology341(1935)(Cooperationoccurs"whenAhelpsBtoaccomplishan
externalactbyanactthatisnotsinful,andwithoutapprovingofwhatBdoes").
Footnote35
Theprincipaldissentmakesnoefforttoreconcileitsviewaboutthesubstantialburdenrequirementwithour
decisioninThomas.
Footnote36
Onlineathttp://cbo.gov/publication/45231.
Footnote37
Inarelatedargument,HHSappearstomaintainthataplaintiffcannotprevailonaRFRAclaimthatseeksan
exemptionfromalegalobligationrequiringtheplaintifftoconferbenefitsonthirdparties.Nothinginthetext
ofRFRAoritsbasicpurposessupportsgivingtheGovernmentanentirelyfreehandtoimposeburdenson
religiousexercisesolongasthoseburdensconferabenefitonotherindividuals.Itiscertainlytruethatin
applyingRFRA"courtsmusttakeadequateaccountoftheburdensarequestedaccommodationmayimposeon
26/31
13/6/2016
nonbeneficiaries."Cutterv.Wilkinson,544U.S.709,720(2005)(applyingRLUIPA).Thatconsiderationwill
ofteninformtheanalysisoftheGovernment'scompellinginterestandtheavailabilityofalessrestrictivemeans
ofadvancingthatinterest.Butitcouldnotreasonablybemaintainedthatanyburdenonreligiousexercise,no
matterhowonerousandnomatterhowreadilythegovernmentinterestcouldbeachievedthroughalternative
means,ispermissibleunderRFRAsolongastherelevantlegalobligationrequiresthereligiousadherentto
conferabenefitonthirdparties.Otherwise,forexample,theGovernmentcoulddecidethatallsupermarkets
mustsellalcoholfortheconvenienceofcustomers(andtherebyexcludeMuslimswithreligiousobjectionsfrom
owningsupermarkets),oritcoulddecidethatallrestaurantsmustremainopenonSaturdaystogiveemployees
anopportunitytoearntips(andtherebyexcludeJewswithreligiousobjectionsfromowningrestaurants).By
framinganyGovernmentregulationasbenefitingathirdparty,theGovernmentcouldturnallregulationsinto
entitlementstowhichnobodycouldobjectonreligiousgrounds,renderingRFRAmeaningless.Inanyevent,
ourdecisioninthesecasesneednotresultinanydetrimentaleffectonanythirdparty.Asweexplain,seeinfra,
at4344,theGovernmentcanreadilyarrangeforothermethodsofprovidingcontraceptives,withoutcost
sharing,toemployeeswhoareunabletoobtainthemundertheirhealthinsuranceplansduetotheiremployers'
religiousobjections.
Footnote38
HHShasconcludedthatinsurersthatinsureeligibleemployersoptingoutofthecontraceptivemandateand
thatarerequiredtopayforcontraceptivecoverageundertheaccommodationwillnotexperienceanincreasein
costsbecausethe"costsofprovidingcontraceptivecoveragearebalancedbycostsavingsfromlower
pregnancyrelatedcostsandfromimprovementsinwomen'shealth."78Fed.Reg.39877.Withrespecttoself
insuredplans,theregulationsestablishamechanismfortheeligibleemployers'thirdpartyadministratorsto
obtainacompensatingreductioninthefeepaidbyinsurerstoparticipateinthefederallyfacilitatedexchanges.
HHSbelievesthatthissystemwillnothaveamaterialeffectonthefundingoftheexchangesbecausethe
"paymentsforcontraceptiveserviceswillrepresentonlyasmallportionoftotal[federallyfacilitatedexchange]
userfees."Id.,at39882see26CFR54.98152713A(b)(3).
Footnote39
Seen.9,supra.
Footnote40
Theprincipaldissentfaultsusforbeing"noncommital"inrefusingtodecideacasethatisnotbeforeushere.
Post,at30.Thelessrestrictiveapproachwedescribeaccommodatesthereligiousbeliefsassertedinthese
cases,andthatistheonlyquestionwearepermittedtoaddress.
Footnote41
Intheprincipaldissent'sview,theGovernmenthasnothadafairopportunitytoaddressthisaccommodation,
post,at30.n.27,buttheGovernmentitselfapparentlybelievesthatwhenit"providesanexceptiontoageneral
ruleforsecularreasons(orforonlycertainreligiousreasons),[it]mustexplainwhyextendingacomparable
exceptiontoaspecificplaintiffforreligiousreasonswouldundermineitscompellinginterests."Briefforthe
UnitedStatesasAmicusCuriaeinHoltv.Hobbs,No.136827,p.10,nowpendingbeforetheCourt.
Footnote42
Cf.42U.S.C.1396s(Federal"programfordistributionofpediatricvaccines"forsomeuninsuredand
underinsuredchildren).
Footnote43
HHShighlightscertainstatementsintheopinioninLeethatitregardsassupportingitspositioninthese
cases.Inparticular,HHSnotesthestatementthat"[w]henfollowersofaparticularsectenterintocommercial
activityasamatterofchoice,thelimitstheyacceptontheirownconductasamatterofconscienceandfaithare
nottobesuperimposedonthestatutoryschemeswhicharebindingonothersinthatactivity."455U.S.,at261.
Leewasafreeexercise,notaRFRA,case,andthestatementtowhichHHSpoints,iftakenatfacevalue,is
squarelyinconsistentwiththeplainmeaningofRFRA.UnderRFRA,whenfollowersofaparticularreligion
choosetoenterintocommercialactivity,theGovernmentdoesnothaveafreehandinimposingobligations
thatsubstantiallyburdentheirexerciseofreligion.Rather,theGovernmentcanimposesuchaburdenonlyif
thestrictRFRAtestismet.
FOOTNOTES
Footnote1
TheCourtinsistsithasheldnoneofthesethings,foranotherlessrestrictivealternativeisathand:extending
anexistingaccommodation,currentlylimitedtoreligiousnonprofitorganizations,toencompasscommercial
enterprises.Seeante,at34.Withthataccommodationextended,theCourtasserts,"womenwouldstillbe
entitledtoall[FoodandDrugAdministration]approvedcontraceptiveswithoutcostsharing."Ante,at4.Inthe
end,however,theCourtisnotsosure.InstarkcontrasttotheCourt'sinitialemphasisonthisaccommodation,
itultimatelydeclinestodecidewhetherthehighlightedaccommodationisevenlawful.Seeante,at44("Wedo
notdecidetodaywhetheranapproachofthistypecomplieswithRFRA....").
Footnote2
See42U.S.C.300gg13(a)(1)(3)(grouphealthplansmustprovidecoverage,withoutcostsharing,for(1)
certain"evidencebaseditemsorservices"recommendedbytheU.S.PreventiveServicesTaskForce(2)
27/31
13/6/2016
immunizationsrecommendedbyanadvisorycommitteeoftheCentersforDiseaseControlandPreventionand
(3)"withrespecttoinfants,children,andadolescents,evidenceinformedpreventivecareandscreenings
providedforinthecomprehensiveguidelinessupportedbytheHealthResourcesandServicesAdministration").
Footnote3
TheIOMisanarmoftheNationalAcademyofSciences,anorganizationCongressestablished"fortheexplicit
purposeoffurnishingadvicetotheGovernment."PublicCitizenv.DepartmentofJustice,491U.S.440,460,
n.11(1989)(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Footnote4
HRSA,HHS,Women'sPreventiveServicesGuidelines,availableathttp://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/
(allInternetmaterialsasvisitedJune27,2014,andavailableinClerkofCourt'scasefile),reprintedinApp.to
BriefforPetitionersinNo.13354,pp.4344a.Seealso77Fed.Reg.87258726(2012).
Footnote5
45CFR147.130(a)(1)(iv)(2013)(HHS)29CFR2590.7152713(a)(1)(iv)(2013)(Labor)26CFR54.9815
2713(a)(1)(iv)(2013)(Treasury).
Footnote6
Separatingmoralconvictionsfromreligiousbeliefswouldbeofquestionablelegitimacy.SeeWelshv.United
States,398U.S.333,357358(1970)(Harlan,J.,concurringinresult).
Footnote7
AstheCourtexplains,seeante,at1116,thesecasesarisefromtwoseparatelawsuits,onefiledbyHobby
Lobby,itsaffiliatedbusiness(Mardel),andthefamilythatoperatesthesebusinesses(theGreens)theother
filedbyConestogaandthefamilythatownsandcontrolsthatbusiness(theHahns).Unlessotherwise
specified,thisopinionreferstotherespectivegroupsofplaintiffsasHobbyLobbyandConestoga.
Footnote8
SeeWisconsinv.Yoder,406U.S.205,230(1972)("Thiscase,ofcourse,isnotoneinwhichanyharmtothe
physicalormentalhealthofthechildortothepublicsafety,peace,order,orwelfarehasbeendemonstratedor
maybeproperlyinferred.")EstateofThorntonv.Caldor,Inc.,472U.S.703(1985)(invalidatingstatestatute
requiringemployerstoaccommodateanemployee'sSabbathobservancewherethatstatutefailedtotakeinto
accounttheburdensuchanaccommodationwouldimposeontheemployerorotheremployees).Notably,in
construingtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000cc
etseq.,theCourthascautionedthat"adequateaccount"mustbetakenof"theburdensarequested
accommodationmayimposeonnonbeneficiaries."Cutterv.Wilkinson,544U.S.709,720(2005)seeid.,at
722("anaccommodationmustbemeasuredsothatitdoesnotoverrideothersignificantinterests").Abalanced
approachisallthemoreinorderwhentheFreeExerciseClauseitselfisatstake,notastatutedesignedto
promoteaccommodationtoreligiousbeliefsandpractices.
Footnote9
UnderSherbertandYoder,theCourt"requir[ed]thegovernmenttojustifyanysubstantialburdenonreligiously
motivatedconductbyacompellingstateinterestandbymeansnarrowlytailoredtoachievethatinterest."
EmploymentDiv.,Dept.ofHumanResourcesofOre.v.Smith,494U.S.872,894(1990)(O'Connor,J.,
concurringinjudgment).
Footnote10
RLUIPA,theCourtnotes,includesaprovisiondirectingthat"[t]hischapter[i.e.,RLUIPA]shallbeconstrued
infavorofabroadprotectionofreligiousexercise,tothemaximumextentpermittedbythetermsof[theAct]
andtheConstitution."42U.S.C.2000cc3(g)seeante,at67,26.RFRAincorporatesRLUIPA'sdefinitionof
"exerciseofreligion,"asRLUIPAdoes,butcontainsnoomnibusruleofconstructiongoverningthestatutein
itsentirety.
Footnote11
TheCourtpointsoutthatIjoinedthemajorityopinioninCityofBoerneanddidnotthenquestionthe
statementthat"leastrestrictivemeans...wasnotused[preSmith]."Ante,at17,n.18.Concerningthat
observation,IremindmycolleaguesofJusticeJackson'ssagecomment:"IseenoreasonwhyIshouldbe
consciouslywrongtodaybecauseIwasunconsciouslywrongyesterday."Massachusettsv.UnitedStates,333
U.S.611,639640(1948)(dissentingopinion).
Footnote12
Asearlierexplained,seesupra,at1011,RLUIPA'samendmentofthedefinitionof"exerciseofreligion"does
notbeartheweighttheCourtplacesonit.Moreover,itispassingstrangetoattributetoRLUIPAanypurposeto
coverentitiesotherthan"religiousassembl[ies]orinstitution[s]."42U.S.C.2000cc(a)(1).Butcf.ante,at26.
Thatlawappliestolanduseregulation.2000cc(a)(1).Topermitcommercialenterprisestochallengezoning
andotherlanduseregulationsunderRLUIPAwould"dramaticallyexpandthestatute'sreach"anddeeply
intrudeonlocalprerogatives,contrarytoCongress'intent.BriefforNationalLeagueofCitiesetal.asAmici
Curiae26.
28/31
13/6/2016
Footnote13
TheCourtregardsGallagherv.CrownKosherSuperMarketofMass.,Inc.,366U.S.617(1961),as
"suggest[ing]...thatforprofitcorporationspossess[freeexercise]rights."Ante,at2627.Seealsoante,at21,
n.21.Thesuggestionisbarelythere.True,oneofthefivechallengerstotheSundayclosinglawassailedin
GallagherwasacorporationownedbyfourOrthodoxJews.Theotherchallengerswerehumanindividuals,not
artificial,lawcreatedentities,sotherewasnoneedtodeterminewhetherthecorporationcouldinstitutethe
litigation.Accordingly,thepluralitystateditcouldpretermitthequestion"whetherappelleesha[d]standing"
becauseBraunfeldv.Brown,366U.S.599(1961),whichupheldasimilarclosinglaw,wasfataltotheirclaim
onthemerits.366U.S.,at631.
Footnote14
See,e.g.,HosannaTaborEvangelicalLutheranChurchandSchoolv.EEOC,565U.S.___(2012)Gonzales
v.OCentroEspritaBeneficenteUniodoVegetal,546U.S.418(2006)ChurchofLukumiBabaluAye,Inc.v.
Hialeah,508U.S.520(1993)JimmySwaggartMinistriesv.BoardofEqualizationofCal.,493U.S.378
(1990).
Footnote15
Typically,Congresshasaccordedtoorganizationsreligiousincharacterreligionbasedexemptionsfrom
statutesofgeneralapplication.E.g.,42U.S.C.2000e1(a)(TitleVIIexemptionfromprohibitionagainst
employmentdiscriminationbasedonreligionfor"areligiouscorporation,association,educationalinstitution,
orsocietywithrespecttotheemploymentofindividualsofaparticularreligiontoperformworkconnectedwith
thecarryingon...ofitsactivities")42U.S.C.12113(d)(1)(parallelexemptioninAmericansWith
DisabilitiesActof1990).ItcanscarcelybemaintainedthatRFRAenlargestheseexemptionstoallowHobby
LobbyandConestogatohireonlypersonswhosharethereligiousbeliefsoftheGreensorHahns.Nordoesthe
Courtsuggestotherwise.Cf.ante,at28.
TheCourtdoesidentifytwostatutoryexemptionsitreadstocoverforprofitcorporations,42U.S.C.300a
7(b)(2)and238n(a),andinfersfromthemthat"Congressspeakswithspecificitywhenitintendsareligious
accommodationnottoextendtoforprofitcorporations,"ante,at28.TheCourt'sinferenceisunwarranted.The
exemptionstheCourtcitescovercertainmedicalpersonnelwhoobjecttoperformingorassistingwith
abortions.Cf.ante,at28,n.27("theprotectionprovidedby238n(a)differssignificantlyfromtheprotection
providedbyRFRA").Notably,theCourtdoesnotassertthattheseexemptionshaveinfactbeenaffordedtofor
profitcorporations.See238n(c)("healthcareentity"coveredbyexemptionisatermdefinedtoinclude"an
individualphysician,apostgraduatephysiciantrainingprogram,andaparticipantinaprogramoftrainingin
thehealthprofessions")Tozzi,WhitherFreeExercise:EmploymentDivisionv.SmithandtheRebirthofState
ConstitutionalFreeExerciseClauseJurisprudence?,48J.CatholicLegalStudies269,296,n.133(2009)
("Catholicphysicians,butnotnecessarilyhospitals,...maybeabletoinvoke[238n(a)]....")cf.S.137,
113thCong.,1stSess.(2013)(asintroduced)(AbortionNonDiscriminationActof2013,whichwouldamend
thedefinitionof"healthcareentity"in238ntoinclude"hospital[s],""healthinsuranceplan[s],"andother
healthcarefacilities).TheseprovisionsarerevealinginawaythatdetractsfromoneoftheCourt'smain
arguments.TheyshowthatCongressisnotcontenttorestontheDictionaryActwhenitwishestoensurethat
particularentitiesareamongthoseeligibleforareligiousaccommodation.
Moreover,theexemptioncodifiedin238n(a)wasnotenacteduntilthreeyearsafterRFRA'spassage.See
OmnibusConsolidatedRescissionsandAppropriationsActof1996,515,110Stat.1321245.If,astheCourt
believes,RFRAopenedallstatutoryschemestoreligionbasedchallengesbyforprofitcorporations,there
wouldbenoneedforastatutespecific,postRFRAexemptionofthissort.
Footnote16
Thatisnottosaythatacategoryofplaintiffs,suchasresidentaliens,maybringRFRAclaimsonlyifthisCourt
expressly"addressedtheir[freeexercise]rightsbeforeSmith."Ante,at27.ContinuingwiththeCourt's
example,residentaliens,unlikecorporations,arefleshandbloodindividualswhoplainlycountaspersons
shelteredbytheFirstAmendment,seeUnitedStatesv.VerdugoUrquidez,494U.S.259,271(1990)(citing
Bridgesv.Wixon,326U.S.135,148(1945)),andafortiori,RFRA.
Footnote17
IpartwayswithJUSTICEKENNEDYonthecontextrelevanthere.Heseesitastheemployers'"exercise[of]their
religiousbeliefswithinthecontextoftheirowncloselyheld,forprofitcorporations."Ante,at2(concurring
opinion).Seealsoante,at4546(opinionoftheCourt)(similarlyconcentratingonreligiousfaithofemployers
withoutreferencetothedifferentbeliefsandlibertyinterestsofemployees).Iseeastherelevantcontextthe
employers'assertedrighttoexercisereligionwithinanationwideprogramdesignedtoprotectagainsthealth
hazardsemployeeswhodonotsubscribetotheiremployers'religiousbeliefs.
Footnote18
AccordingtotheCourt,theGovernment"concedes"that"nonprofitcorporation[s]"areprotectedbyRFRA.
Ante,at19.Seealsoante,at20,24,30.ThatisnotanaccuratedescriptionoftheGovernment'sposition,which
encompassesonly"churches,""religiousinstitutions,"and"religiousnonprofits."BriefforRespondentsinNo.
13356,p.28(emphasisadded).SeealsoReplyBriefinNo.13354,p.8("RFRAincorporatesthelongstanding
andcommonsensedistinctionbetweenreligiousorganizations,whichsometimeshavebeenaccorded
accommodationsundergenerallyapplicablelawsinrecognitionoftheiracceptedreligiouscharacter,andfor
profitcorporationsorganizedtodobusinessinthecommercialworld.").
Footnote19
TheCourtdoesnotevenbegintoexplainhowonemightgoaboutascertainingthereligiousscruplesofa
29/31
13/6/2016
corporationwheresharesaresoldtothepublic.Noneedtospeculateonthat,theCourtsays,for"itseems
unlikely"thatlargecorporations"willoftenassertRFRAclaims."Ante,at29.Perhapsso,butasHobbyLobby's
casedemonstrates,suchclaimsareindeedpursuedbylargecorporations,employingthousandsofpersonsof
differentfaiths,whoseownershipisnotdiffuse."Closelyheld"isnotsynonymouswith"small."HobbyLobbyis
hardlytheonlyenterpriseofsizablescalethatisfamilyownedorcloselyheld.Forexample,thefamilyowned
candygiantMars,Inc.,takesin$33billioninrevenuesandhassome72,000employees,andcloselyheld
Cargill,Inc.,takesinmorethan$136billioninrevenuesandemployssome140,000persons.SeeForbes,
America'sLargestPrivateCompanies2013,availableathttp://www.forbes.com/largestprivatecompanies/.
NordoestheCourtofferanyinstructiononhowtoresolvethedisputesthatmaycropupamongcorporate
ownersoverreligiousvaluesandaccommodations.TheCourtissatisfiedthat"[s]tatecorporatelawprovidesa
readymeansforresolvinganyconflicts,"ante,at30,buttheauthoritiescitedinsupportofthatpropositionare
hardlyhelpful.SeeDel.CodeAnn.,Tit.8,351(2011)(certificatesofincorporationmayspecifyhowthe
businessismanaged)1J.Cox&T.Hazen,TreatiseontheLawofCorporations3:2(3ded.2010)(section
entitled"Selectingthestateofincorporation")id.,14:11(observingthat"[d]espitethefrequencyofdissension
anddeadlockinclosecorporations,insomestatesneitherlegislaturesnorcourtshaveprovidedsatisfactory
solutions").Andevenifadisputesettlementmechanismisinplace,howisthearbiterofareligionbased
intracorporatecontroversytoresolvethedisagreement,giventhisCourt'sinstructionthat"courtshaveno
businessaddressing[whetheranassertedreligiousbelief]issubstantial,"ante,at36?
Footnote20
TheCourtdismissestheargument,advancedbysomeamici,thatthe$2,000peremployeetaxchargedto
certainemployersthatfailtoprovidehealthinsuranceislessthantheaveragecostofofferinghealthinsurance,
notingthattheGovernmenthasnotprovidedthestatisticsthatcouldsupportsuchanargument.Seeante,at
3234.TheCourtoverlooks,however,thatitisnottheGovernment'sobligationtoprovethatanassertedburden
isinsubstantial.Instead,itisincumbentuponplaintiffstodemonstrate,insupportofaRFRAclaim,the
substantialityoftheallegedburden.
Footnote21
TheCourtlevelsacriticismthatisaswrongheadedascanbe.Innowaydoesthedissent"telltheplaintiffsthat
theirbeliefsareflawed."Ante,at37.RightorwronginthisdomainisajudgmentnoMemberofthisCourt,or
anycivilcourt,isauthorizedorequippedtomake.WhattheCourtmustdecideisnot"theplausibilityofa
religiousclaim,"ante,at37(internalquotationmarksomitted),butwhetheraccommodatingthatclaimrisks
deprivingothersofrightsaccordedthembythelawsoftheUnitedStates.Seesupra,at78infra,at27.
Footnote22
IUDs,whichareamongthemostreliableformsofcontraception,generallycostwomenmorethan$1,000
whentheexpensesoftheofficevisitandinsertionprocedurearetakenintoaccount.SeeEisenberg,
McNicholas,&Peipert,CostasaBarriertoLongActingReversibleContraceptive(LARC)UseinAdolescents,
52J.AdolescentHealthS59,S60(2013).SeealsoWinneretal.,EffectivenessofLongActingReversible
Contraception,366NewEng.J.Medicine1998,1999(2012).
Footnote23
AlthoughtheCourt'sopinionmakesthisassumptiongrudgingly,seeante,at3940,oneMemberofthe
majorityrecognizes,withoutreservation,that"the[contraceptivecoverage]mandateservestheGovernment's
compellinginterestinprovidinginsurancecoveragethatisnecessarytoprotectthehealthoffemale
employees."Ante,at2(opinionofKENNEDY,J.).
Footnote24
HobbyLobby'samicusNationalReligiousBroadcasterssimilarlystatesthat,"[g]iventhenatureofemployers'
needstomeetchangingeconomicandstaffingcircumstances,andtoadjustinsurancecoverageaccordingly,
theactualbenefitofthe'grandfather'exclusionisdeminimisandtransitoryatbest."BriefforNational
ReligiousBroadcastersasAmicusCuriaeinNo.13354,p.28.
Footnote25
AstheCourtmadeclearinCutter,thegovernment'slicensetograntreligionbasedexemptionsfromgenerally
applicablelawsisconstrainedbytheEstablishmentClause.544U.S.,at720722."[W]eareacosmopolitan
nationmadeupofpeopleofalmosteveryconceivablereligiouspreference,"Braunfeld,366U.S.,at606,a"rich
mosaicofreligiousfaiths,"TownofGreecev.Galloway,572U.S.___,___(2014)(KAGAN,J.,dissenting)
(slipop.,at15).Consequently,oneperson'srighttofreeexercisemustbekeptinharmonywiththerightsofher
fellowcitizens,and"somereligiouspractices[must]yieldtothecommongood."UnitedStatesv.Lee,455U.S.
252,259(1982).
Footnote26
Cf.Ashcroftv.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,542U.S.656,666(2004)(incontextofFirstAmendment
SpeechClausechallengetoacontentbasedspeechrestriction,courtsmustdetermine"whetherthechallenged
regulationistheleastrestrictivemeansamongavailable,effectivealternatives"(emphasisadded)).
Footnote27
Onbrief,HobbyLobbyandConestogabarelyaddressedtheextensionsolution,whichwouldbracket
commercialenterpriseswithnonprofitreligionbasedorganizationsforreligiousaccommodationspurposes.
Thehesitationisunderstandable,forchallengestotheadequacyoftheaccommodationaccordedreligious
30/31
13/6/2016
nonprofitorganizationsarecurrentlysubjudice.See,e.g.,LittleSistersofthePoorHomefortheAgedv.
Sebelius,___F.Supp.2d___,2013WL6839900(Colo.,Dec.27,2013),injunctionpendingappealgranted,
571U.S.___(2014).Atanotherpointintoday'sdecision,theCourtrefusestoconsideranargumentneither
"raisedbelow[nor]advancedinthisCourtbyanyparty,"givingHobbyLobbyandConestoga"[no]opportunity
torespondto[that]novelclaim."Ante,at33.YettheCourtiscontenttodecidethiscase(andthiscaseonly)on
thegroundthatHHScouldmakeanaccommodationneversuggestedintheparties'presentations.RFRA
cannotsensiblybereadto"requir[e]thegovernmentto...refuteeachandeveryconceivablealternative
regulation,"UnitedStatesv.Wilgus,638F.3d1274,1289(CA102011),especiallywherethealternativeon
whichtheCourtseizeswasnotpressedbyanychallenger.
Footnote28
Asasoleproprietor,Leewassubjecttopersonalliabilityforviolatingthelawofgeneralapplicationhe
opposed.Hisclaimtoareligionbasedexemptionwouldhavebeeneventhinnerhadheconductedhisbusiness
asacorporation,thusavoidingpersonalliability.
Footnote29
CongressamendedtheSocialSecurityActinresponsetoLee.TheamendedstatutepermitsAmishsole
proprietorsandpartnerships(butnotAmishownedcorporations)toobtainanexemptionfromtheobligation
topaySocialSecuritytaxesonlyforemployeeswhoarecoreligionistsandwholikewiseseekanexemptionand
agreetogiveuptheirSocialSecuritybenefits.See26U.S.C.3127(a)(2),(b)(1).Thus,employerswithsincere
religiousbeliefshavenorighttoareligionbasedexemptionthatwoulddepriveemployeesofSocialSecurity
benefitswithouttheemployee'sconsentanexemptionanalogoustotheoneHobbyLobbyandConestogaseek
here.
Footnote30
Cf.TonyandSusanAlamoFoundationv.SecretaryofLabor,471U.S.290,299(1985)(disallowingreligion
basedexemptionthat"wouldundoubtedlygive[thecommercialenterpriseseekingtheexemption]andsimilar
organizationsanadvantageovertheircompetitors").
Footnote31
Religiousobjectionstoimmunizationprogramsarenothypothetical.SeePhillipsv.NewYork,___F.Supp.2d
___,2014WL2547584(EDNY,June5,2014)(dismissingfreeexercisechallengestoNewYork'svaccination
practices)LibertyCounsel,CompulsoryVaccinationsThreatenReligiousFreedom(2007),availableat
http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/memo_vaccination.pdf.
RESEARCHTHELAW
Cases&Codes/OpinionSummaries/SampleBusinessContracts/ResearchAnAttorneyorLawFirm
MANAGEYOURPRACTICE
LawTechnology/LawPracticeManagement/LawFirmMarketingServices/CorporateCounselCenter
MANAGEYOURCAREER
LegalCareerJobSearch/OnlineCLE/LawStudentResources
NEWSANDCOMMENTARY
LegalNewsHeadlines/LawCommentary/FeaturedDocuments/Newsletters/Blogs/RSSFeeds
GETLEGALFORMS
LegalFormsforYourPractice
ABOUTUS
CompanyHistory/MediaRelations/ContactUs/Privacy/Advertising/Jobs
FINDUSON
Copyright2016FindLaw,aThomsonReutersbusiness.Allrightsreserved.
31/31

Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13/6/2016

CASES&CODES PRACTICEMANAGEMENT JOBS&CAREERS LEGALNEWS

FindLaw Caselaw UnitedStates USSupremeCourt

You might also like