lawyer who argued hobby lobby

Who praised the Supreme Court's ruling on Hobby Lobby?

May 24, 2013 · On May 23, Duncan argued Hobby Lobby's case before the full eight-member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Such cases are usually heard by …

Who was the lawyer for Hobby Lobby?

Apr 24, 2018 · A lawyer who led the fight against Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate, eventually winning the Hobby Lobby case before the Supreme Court, won confirmation by the Senate on Tuesday to a federal ...

Does Hobby Lobby have a right to religion?

Jun 30, 2014 · Joshua Hawley was one of the attorneys representing Hobby Lobby. We spoke to him in his office a few hours after the ruling came down about what the case means for businesses and for the future of...

What was the Hobby Lobby case about?

Jul 07, 2014 · The lawyers argue that – in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision – the detainees’ rights are protected under the …

What was the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case?

In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the US Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violated privately held, for-profit corporations' right to religious freedom.Jul 4, 2018

Did Hobby Lobby file a lawsuit against the government?

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against enforcement of the contraception rule based on the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Who was the plaintiff in Burwell vs Hobby Lobby?

Petitioner. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

What was the dissenting opinion in Burwell v Hobby Lobby?

Breyer and Kagan also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which they held that, because “the [individual] plaintiffs' challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits,” it was not necessary for the court to decide whether the RFRA applied to for-profit corporations or their owners.

What religion is Hobby Lobby associated with?

Hobby Lobby and Mardel include mission statements on their corporate websites outlining a dedication to Christian principles.Jul 1, 2014

What was the controversy with Hobby Lobby?

The business and its owners have been the subject of controversies and scandals including accusations of anti-Semitism, homophobia, LGBTQ discrimination, attempts to evangelize public schools, "efforts to deny access to contraceptives for employees," "discrimination and illegally smuggled artifacts to endangering ...

Who won the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby case?

The Court ruled against birth control access in a 5-to-4 decision, with the majority of the justices saying that Hobby Lobby and other “closely held corporations” could deny birth control coverage to their employees. The ruling set a new precedent.

Does Hobby Lobby pay for birth control?

Hobby Lobby does pay for most contraceptives under its plan – all but four of those required by the federal mandate. The Greens only object to those that can terminate life. Hobby Lobby's health plan does not provide or pay for any medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Did Hobby Lobby lose their Court case?

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business, Hobby Lobby ruling they do not have to violate their faith or pay severe fines.

What was the constitutional question raised by the participants in Burwell v Hobby Lobby?

Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood v. Burwell—consolidated for Supreme Court review—raised the question of whether for-profit, secular corporations could deny their employees coverage for contraceptives in their group health insurance plans, a requirement under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Who won Boerne v Flores?

Flores, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 1997, ruled (6–3) that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 exceeded the powers of Congress. According to the court, although the act was constitutional concerning federal actions, it could not be applied to the states.Apr 7, 2022

Is Hobby Lobby a private company?

Today, with more than 900 stores, Hobby Lobby is the largest privately owned arts-and-crafts retailer in the world with over 43,000 employees operating in 47 states.

Who is the CEO of Hobby Lobby?

Ibid. David serves as the CEO of Hobby Lobby, and his three children serve as the president, vice president, and vice CEO.

How many Hobby Lobby stores are there in Oklahoma?

Forty-five years ago, David Green started an arts-and-crafts store that has grown into a nationwide chain called Hobby Lobby. There are now 500 Hobby Lobby stores, and the company has more than 13,000 employees. 723 F. 3d, at 1122. Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law.

Why was the RFRA enacted?

Congress enacted RFRA in 1993 in order to provide very broad protection for religious liberty. RFRA’s enactment came three years after this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990), which largely repudiated the method of analyzing free-exercise claims that had been used in cases like Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972). In determining whether challenged government actions violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, those decisions used a balancing test that took into account whether the challenged action imposed a substantial burden on the practice of religion, and if it did, whether it was needed to serve a compelling government interest. Applying this test, the Court held in Sherbert that an employee who was fired for refusing to work on her Sabbath could not be denied unemployment benefits. 374 U. S., at 408–409. And in Yoder, the Court held that Amish children could not be required to comply with a state law demanding that they remain in school until the age of 16 even though their religion required them to focus on uniquely Amish values and beliefs during their formative adolescent years. 406 U. S., at 210–211, 234–236.

What is the least restrictive means standard?

The least-restrictive-means standard is exceptionally demanding, see City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532, and it is not satisfied here. HHS has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases. See §§2000bb–1 (a), (b) (requiring the Government to “demonstrat [e] that application of [a substantial] burden to the person . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest” (emphasis added)).

What is Planned Parenthood v Casey?

“The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 856 (1992). Congress acted on that understand ing when, as part of a nationwide insurance program intended to be comprehensive, it called for coverage of preventive care responsive to women’s needs. Carrying out Congress’ direction, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in consultation with public health experts, promulgated regulations requiring group health plans to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The genesis of this coverage should enlighten the Court’s resolution of these cases.

Does contraceptive coverage satisfy the RFRA?

After assuming the existence of compelling government interests, the Court holds that the contraceptive coverage requirement fails to satisfy RFRA’s least restrictive means test. But the Government has shown that there is no less restrictive, equally effective means that would both (1) satisfy the challengers’ religious objections to providing insurance coverage for certain contraceptives (which they believe cause abortions); and (2) carry out the objective of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement, to ensure that women employees receive, at no cost to them, the preventive care needed to safeguard their health and well being. A “least restrictive means” cannot require employees to relinquish benefits accorded them by federal law in order to ensure that their commercial employers can adhere unreservedly to their religious tenets. See supra, at 7–8, 27. 25

What is the compelling interest test?

RFRA’s compelling interest test, as noted, see supra, at 8, applies to government actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion .” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1 (a) (emphasis added). This reference, the Court submits, incorporates the definition of “person” found in the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. §1, which extends to “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” See ante, at 19–20. The Dictionary Act’s definition, however, controls only where “context” does not “indicat [e] otherwise.” §1. Here, context does so indicate. RFRA speaks of “a person’s exercise of religion .” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1 (a) (emphasis added). See also §§2000bb–2 (4), 2000cc–5 (7) (a). 12 Whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” capable of exercis- ing religion is an inquiry one cannot answer without reference to the “full body” of pre- Smith “free-exercise caselaw.” Gilardi, 733 F. 3d, at 1212. There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations.

Who was the lawyer in Hobby Lobby v. Lee?

The three women in the court focused their questioning on Hobby Lobby's lawyer, Paul Clement, while the men focused on the administration's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Justice Sotomayor quoted the ruling from United States v. Lee (1982) saying that an employer can't deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. Clement replied that Lee does not apply because it was a challenge against a tax rather than against a significant burden. Sotomayor said that instead of paying the burden of the penalty, Hobby Lobby could replace its health care with the equivalent expense of higher wages and a calibrated tax, which the government would use to pay for the employees' health care. Near the end of Clement's argument, Justice Kennedy expressed concern for the rights of the employees who may not agree with the religious beliefs of their employers. When Verrilli argued that the ruling in Cutter v. Wilkinson requires the court to weigh the impact on third parties in every RFRA case, Justice Scalia said that the RFRA does not require the court to balance the interest of the religious objector to the interest of other individuals. Verilli returned to Lee, saying that granting an exemption to an employer should not impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.

What did the Supreme Court say about Hobby Lobby?

National Review said that the Supreme Court ruling " [led] Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Matt Bowman to call Hobby Lobby an 'inclusive decision' that advances everyone's freedom ." Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, "This is a great victory for religious liberty – the bedrock of our founding. In living out our religious convictions, there are certain things we must not do. This is why we are at a watershed moment. Religious people will no longer be ordered to take action that our religion says we must not take." Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation. We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said, "We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to recognize that Americans can continue to follow their faith when they run a family business ... Now is the time to redouble our efforts to build a culture that fully respects religious freedom."

What is Hobby Lobby suing?

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against enforcement of the contraception rule based on the RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Which court vacated Eden Foods v. Hobby Lobby?

Forbes reported that following the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, "the Supreme Court vacated the judgment against Eden Foods and sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration."

Who owns Hobby Lobby?

Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts company founded by billionaire David Green and owned by the Evangelical Christian Green family with about 21,000 employees. It provided health insurance covering the contraceptives Plan-B and Ella until it dropped its coverage in 2012, the year it filed its lawsuit.

What is an EBSA form 700?

On July 3, 2014, the Supreme Court granted a temporary exemption to the approach it suggested as a less restrictive alternative in Hobby Lobby, where the plaintiffs would send a form ( EBSA Form 700) to its insurance issuer, which would pay for the contraception. In an unsigned emergency injunction for Wheaton College in Illinois, the court said that instead of notifying its insurance issuer, Wheaton can notify the government. Once notified, the government should notify the issuer. Wheaton believed that by transferring the obligation to cover contraceptives to its insurance issuer, it was triggering that obligation. The emergency injunction does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Wheaton's religious objection. The court said "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives."

Who is Barbara Green?

Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby, said "Today, the nation's highest court has reaffirmed the vital importance of religious liberty as one of our country's founding principles. The court's decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith."