Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius

Issues

  1. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect for-profit corporations?
  2. Does the contraceptive-coverage Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 violate corporations’ religious exercise rights?

 

As part of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") adopted a mandate requiring that employment-based health plans covered by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") include twenty contraceptive methods. Two corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, sued, objecting on religious grounds to the inclusion of four of the methods because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. The corporations argue that the Mandate offends their religious rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the Free Exercise Clause. The government argues that corporations do not have these rights; and, in any case, the Mandate is statutorily and constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court will consider whether for-profit corporations can sue under RFRA or the Free Exercise  Clause,  and whether this mandate violates corporations’ right to exercise religion. The Court’s ruling may significantly impact foundational principles of corporate law and the scope of corporations’ First Amendment rights. This case will also impact the Affordable Care Act’s power to mandate health plans.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a) and (b). The question presented is whether RFRA allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation's owners.

 

Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius

Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely-held business corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”).

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), employment-based health care plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) are required to provide coverage for certain preventative health services. SeeHobby

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

Issues

(1) When a party has intervened to defend an administrative rule that protects their interests, does that party lack standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the party is already protected by an injunction issued by another court?

(2) Are the administrative rules exempting religious objectors from covering contraceptive care for their employees procedurally and substantively valid?

The Supreme Court consolidated Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, two cases challenging the Trump Administration rules allowing employers to opt out of contraceptive-care coverage for their employees. Petitioners Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. (“Government”) and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home (“Little Sisters”) assert that the final rules are procedurally and substantively valid because the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (“the Agencies”) can circumvent the notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when, as in here, they have “good cause.” Furthermore, the Government and Little Sisters assert that the Agencies were authorized to make such exemptions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Respondents, the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey (“Pennsylvania”), counter that the final rules are procedurally and substantively invalid because the Agencies violated the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement.  Furthermore, Pennsylvania argues that the power to make such exemptions lies solely with Congress and the Court, and that the Agencies had no authority under the ACA or RFRA. On the second issue in front of the Court, Little Sisters asserts that it has standing in this appeal because it is at risk of harm under the preliminary injunction in question, irrespective of an injunction from the District Court of Colorado. Pennsylvania counters that Little Sisters does not have standing in this appeal because the Colorado District Court’s injunction protects Little Sisters from any harm caused by the preliminary injunction in question. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for the separation of powers, religious freedom, and individual rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

In 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which included the Women’s Health Amendment mandating that insurance issuers cover women’s preventive health care. Pennsylvania v.

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Joshua C. Macey for his guidance on this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Religious Freedom Restoration Act