Opinion ID: 2816858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: hobby lobby and this case

Text: Last year, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), in which closely-held for-profit corporations challenged the Mandate under RFRA. The difference between Hobby Lobby and this case is significant and frames the issue here. In Hobby Lobby, the plaintiff for-profit corporations objected on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage and could choose only between (1) complying with the ACA by providing the coverage or (2) not complying and paying significant penalties. Id. at 2759-60. In the cases before us, the plaintiff religious nonprofit organizations can avail themselves of an accommodation that allows them to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage without penalty. Plaintiffs contend the process to opt out substantially burdens their religious exercise. In other words, unlike in Hobby Lobby, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the general obligation under the ACA to provide contraceptive coverage. They instead challenge the process they must follow to get out of complying with that obligation. The Plaintiffs do -3- not claim the Departments have not tried to accommodate their religious concerns. They claim the Departments’ attempt is inadequate because the acts required to opt out of the Mandate substantially burden their religious exercise. As we discuss more fully below, however, the accommodation relieves Plaintiffs of their obligation to provide, pay for, or facilitate contraceptive coverage, and does so without substantially burdening their religious exercise.