{ "id": "R43654", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43654", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 447300, "date": "2015-11-12", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:57:57.794606", "title": "Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.", "summary": "A 5-4 decision, issued over a highly critical dissent, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. resolved one of the many challenges raised in response to the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Imputing the beliefs of owners of closely held corporations to such corporations, the U.S. Supreme Court found that closely held corporations that hold religious objections to certain contraceptive services cannot be required to provide coverage of those services in employee health plans. The Court\u2019s decision was based on the protections offered under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a statute prohibiting the government from imposing a substantial burden on a person\u2019s religious exercise unless it can show a compelling interest achieved by the least restrictive means. The Court declined to address the constitutional challenge, holding that the companies were protected under RFRA.\nIn the absence of a definition under RFRA, the majority interpreted the term \u201cperson\u201d to include closely held corporations, even if they operated for-profit, and determined that the penalties that such companies would face if they failed to comply with the contraceptive coverage requirement would impose a substantial burden. Though the Court assumed that the government had a compelling interest to require contraceptive coverage under ACA, it found that less restrictive means (e.g., expanding the regulatory accommodation available to nonprofit employers with similar objections) could achieve that interest without requiring companies with religious objections to be subject to the requirement. \nAlthough Hobby Lobby resolved the question regarding the applicability of RFRA to closely held corporations\u2014defined by the Court as \u201ceach owned and controlled by members of a single family\u201d\u2014the decision leaves open a number of questions about the scope of RFRA\u2019s protections and future enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirement. One such question, now awaiting review by the Court, is whether RFRA may provide protection for nonprofit religious entities already eligible for the accommodation, but which nonetheless object to the process of qualification for eligibility. Because the Court\u2019s decision was based on statutory grounds, Congress remains free to define which entities may be governed by ACA or other federal laws generally.\nThis report analyzes the Court\u2019s decision in Hobby Lobby, including arguments made between the majority and dissent, to clarify the scope of the decision and potential impacts for future interpretation of RFRA\u2019s applicability. It also examines potential legislative responses, should Congress consider addressing the current applicability of RFRA. Finally, the report addresses the decision\u2019s effect on requirements that employers offer contraceptive coverage in group health plans under federal or state law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43654", "sha1": "d2bf27c6dbdf61a2a20140a45d73662c3a1890b4", "filename": "files/20151112_R43654_d2bf27c6dbdf61a2a20140a45d73662c3a1890b4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43654", "sha1": "0eb42c2391eae4af0de003c0ae7cde58678747d6", "filename": "files/20151112_R43654_0eb42c2391eae4af0de003c0ae7cde58678747d6.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3362, "name": "First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3746, "name": "Health Care Reform" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc505391/", "id": "R43654_2015Apr06", "date": "2015-04-06", "retrieved": "2015-05-29T05:37:21", "title": "Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.", "summary": "This report analyzes the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby, including arguments made between the majority and dissent, to clarify the scope of the decision and potential impacts for future interpretation of RFRA's applicability. It also examines potential legislative responses, should Congress consider addressing the current applicability of RFRA. Finally, the report addresses the decision's effect on requirements that employers offer contraceptive coverage in group health plans under federal or state law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150406_R43654_67c404c5e4344468ec2b5d69b3df4f6a4ac86181.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150406_R43654_67c404c5e4344468ec2b5d69b3df4f6a4ac86181.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Contraceptives", "name": "Contraceptives" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health care reform", "name": "Health care reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Religious liberty", "name": "Religious liberty" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc462756/", "id": "R43654_2014Jul23", "date": "2014-07-23", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.", "summary": "This report analyzes the Court's decision in Hobby Lobby, including arguments made between the majority and dissent, to clarify the scope of the decision and potential impacts for future interpretation of RFRA's applicability. It also examines potential legislative responses, should Congress consider addressing the current applicability of RFRA. Finally, the report addresses the decision's effect on requirements that employers offer contraceptive coverage in group health plans under federal or state law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140723_R43654_4bf2d0a31eec70c3760ba0cee518a004e242ad41.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140723_R43654_4bf2d0a31eec70c3760ba0cee518a004e242ad41.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Health care reform", "name": "Health care reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Contraceptives", "name": "Contraceptives" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Religious liberty", "name": "Religious liberty" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Health Policy" ] }