Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores

COMM 3310 – LEGAL CASE BRIEF

Citation:
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores 573 U.S. 13-354 (2014)
Chapter or area of communication law that your brief applies to.
First Amendment Rights: Free Exercise of Religion
The second part of the brief is the facts of the case. This is the summary or background that led to this particular dispute. It resembles a journalist’s report offering only the basic “who, what, where, when, how and why” of the trial and case record leading up to the present appeal. Included in this is a brief statement of the plaintiff’s argument and the defendant’s argument.
FACTS:
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and crafts company, is owned and operated by David and Barbara Green. They have openly constructed their business …show more content…
On September 12, 2012, the company, represented by the Green Family sued Greens sued Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services at that time. They argued that the contraception requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. They were initially denied by the district court and Supreme Court, which led to an appeal and file for a hearing with the Court of Appeals. This panel of judges reversed the decision in the motion that the corporation was a “person” and deserved their protected rights under the Free Exercise Clause under the First …show more content…
In a 5-4 majority decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the court’s opinion. The Court stressed that Congress did not intend to discriminate against an individual who wishes to run their business based on personal religious beliefs. Justice Alito stated, “Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.”

DISSENT:
Additionally, judicial precedent states that religious beliefs or observances must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sought-after exemption would do to women seeking contraception in this case. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA.

The final part of the brief summarizes in one or two sentences what the consequences have been as a result of the case. Has the law changed in some form or another? This is also where you get to state briefly what you think of the decision of the court.
PRECEDENT/POINT OF

Show More

Case Study: Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Store

Case Study: Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Stores