Menu

Post-Hobby Lobby Questions Remain About the Scope of Corporate Religious Freedom

Health Care   |   September 16, 2014
Download   
Share Page

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a challenge to regulations mandating that employers provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Court found the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits laws burdening the free exercise of religion unless they further a compelling governmental interest and are the least restrictive means available. In so doing, the Court for the first time expressly recognized that for-profit corporations have standing to raise free exercise claims.

The challenged regulations mandated that employers’ health plans include coverage for 20 FDA approved contraceptives. Hobby Lobby, Inc. and two other companies objected to this requirement as it related to four contraceptive methods that function by preventing development of an already fertilized ovum. They argued that this requirement substantially burdened their right to exercise their religion because it conflicted with their moral convictions concerning abortion. The Court agreed. While the Court presumed that the mandate served a compelling governmental interest, it held that it was not the least restrictive means of serving that interest. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on regulations making contraceptive coverage available for employees of religious organizations and not-for-profit corporations exempted from the mandate.

Practically, the decision may have little impact on the availability of contraceptive coverage. As the Court noted, HHS can ensure availability of contraceptive benefits by expanding regulatory accommodations made for religious organizations and not-for-profits. However, the decision raises questions about the scope of employers’ rights to protection of their free exercise rights.

These questions are particularly relevant to LGBT interests. An anticipated executive order prohibiting discrimination by federal contractors against LGBT employees seems certain to face a Hobby Lobby challenge. Likewise, the breadth of Hobby Lobby will be tested as courts determine whether employers can be compelled to provide benefits to same sex spouses.


©2019 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.