Today, the Supreme Court issued its hotly anticipated decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13–354.  The decision represents a victory for those who believe corporations may exercise certain religious freedoms. 

The case involves legal challenges to regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA).  The ACA requires nonexempt employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer group health plans that provide “preventive care and screenings” to women without “any cost sharing requirements.”  Failure on the part of an employer to supply required health coverage may result in a significant penalty ranging from as low as $100 per day for each affected individual to a maximum of $2,000 per year for each full-time employee.

Congress did not specify which types of preventive care must be covered under ACA; rather, the matter was left to the discretion of HHS.  Under the Women’s Preventive Services Guidelines issued by HHS, nonexempt employers are required to provide coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling.”  HHS also exempted religious employers, such as churches, and religious nonprofit organizations from the contraceptive mandate.  Instead, the HHS regulations require the group-health-insurance issuer to exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payment plans for contraceptive services without imposing any cost ­sharing requirements on the employer.

Of the 20 contraceptive methods approved FDA, four may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.  Three closely held for-profit corporations sought preliminary injunctions against HHS and other Federal officials and agencies. The corporations included, Hobby Lobby Stores, Mardel, and Conestoga Wood Specialties.  The owners of the corporations refused to offer employees cost-free access to the four dubious contraceptive methods under their health plans.  The owners believed that facilitating access to such contraceptive drugs or devices that induce abortions violate their sincerely held religious and Christian beliefs.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling, Justice Alito held that the HHS regulations im­posing the contraceptive mandate on the closely held corporations violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).  The RFRA prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is (1) in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”  The term “person” was broadly defined under the statute to include corporations. 

In deciding the case in favor of the corporations, the Court assumed that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling.  But, the Court found that the Government had failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. In particular, HHS did not show that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the corporations in the case.  Despite this ruling, the case is to be narrowly construed: as it applies only to family-owned, closely held corporations with clearly established religious views; and concerns only the contraceptive mandate.  The Court stated:

"Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an               employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

Our decision today provides no . . . shield [to employers who might cloak discrimination as religious practice to escape sanction.”

Both Texan Senators hailed the Supreme Court decision, with Senator Ted Cruz calling the decision a “landmark victory for religious liberty.”

Shortly following the ruling, the White House responded by stating that the Supreme Court’s ruling jeopardizes the health of women, and that it would be seeking alternative ways to guarantee protection for women employed by these corporations.

Read the decision here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pd