Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_23_issue_2?pg=76
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:24:29+00:00

Document:
The day after deciding Hobby Lobby the Court granted petitions for review in for-profit cases from the D. C. and Sixth Circuits. 69 In Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the D. C. Circuit court case, the Court granted a closely held corporation’s request to review the D. C. Circuit’s denial of their RFRA claim , summarily vacated the lower court decision, and remanded to the D. C. Circuit for consideration of the company’s RFRA claim in light of Hobby Lobby. 70 The Sixth Circuit in Eden Foods v. Burwell and Autocam v. Burwell had rejected both closely held companies’ RFRA claims, finding that secular, for-profit companies cannot exercise religion, and that their owners lack standing to challenge rules that apply to the companies, not to the owners. 71 Here, too, the Court granted the companies’ petition for review, summarily vacated the lower court decision, and remanded. 72 On remand, both the D. C. and Sixth Circuits must apply Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and decide whether the companies in those cases are also “persons” for purposes of RFRA, and therefore entitled under RFRA to refuse to offer insurance that covers contraception.
rily serve the compelling interests to which Congress responded”).
69. Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-567, 2014 WL 2931834 (U.S. July 1, 2014); Autocam Corp. v. Burwell, No. 13-482, 2014 WL 2931833 (U.S. July 1, 2014); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell, No. 13-591, 2014 WL 2931836 (U.S. July 1, 2014).
70. Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-915, 2014 WL 2931853 (U.S. July 1, 2014) (denying petition); Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-567, 2014 WL 2931834 (U.S. July 1, 2014) (granting petition).
71. Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius, 730 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated sub nom. Autocam v. Burwell, No. 13-482, 2014 WL 2931833 (U.S. July 1, 2014); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius, 733 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2013), vacated sub nom. Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell, No. 13-591, 2014 WL 2931836 (U.S. July 1, 2014).
72. Autocam v. Burwell, No. 13-482, 2014 WL 2931833, at 1 (U.S. July 1, 2014); Eden Foods, Inc. v. Burwell, No. 13-591, 2014 WL 2931836, at 1 (U.S. July 1, 2014).
73. See, e.g., Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.