Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

[6] The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability[b] even as an expression of religious belief.

In 1993, the US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability "substantially burden[s] a person's[c] exercise of religion".

American Freedom Law Center's brief argues that birth control harms women because men will only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires.

It mentions the ruling in Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald made against the African American owner of JWM Investments whose contracts were breached due to racial discrimination.

Four justices (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) joined him to strike down the HHS mandate, as applied to closely held corporations with religious objections, and to prevent the plaintiffs from being compelled to provide contraception under their healthcare plans.

[54] The court concluded by addressing "the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction".

"[57] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, responding to the "respectful and powerful dissent", by emphasizing the limited nature of the ruling and saying that the government "makes the case that the mandate serves the Government's compelling interest in providing insurance coverage that is necessary to protect the health of female employees", but that the RFRA's least-restrictive way requirement is not met because "there is an existing, recognized, workable, and already-implemented framework to provide coverage," the one that HHS has devised for non-profit corporations with religious objections.

As the Court explains, this existing model, designed precisely for this problem, might well suffice to distinguish the instant cases from many others in which it is more difficult and expensive to accommodate a governmental program to countless religious claims based on an alleged statutory right of free exercise."

Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a 'less restrictive alternative.'

"[62] Responding to the majority's argument that the government should "assume the cost" of contraceptives, Ginsburg said that "the nation's only dedicated source of federal funding for safety net family planning services ..." is not designed to absorb the unmet needs of those already insured.

[63] Ginsburg warns, "The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield ..."[64] Justices Breyer and Kagan wrote a one-paragraph dissenting opinion, saying that "the plaintiffs' challenge to the contraceptive coverage requirement fails on the merits" and that they "need not and do not decide whether either for-profit corporations or their owners may bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

"[65] Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby Lobby, said "Today, the nation's highest court has reaffirmed the vital importance of religious liberty as one of our country's founding principles.

"[68] Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "The Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant victories for religious freedom in our generation.

We are thankful the Supreme Court agreed that the government went too far by mandating that family businesses owners must violate their consciences under threat of crippling fines.

"[68] The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said, "We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to recognize that Americans can continue to follow their faith when they run a family business ... Now is the time to redouble our efforts to build a culture that fully respects religious freedom.

This is a deeply disappointing and troubling ruling that will prevent some women, especially those working hourly-wage jobs and struggling to make ends meet, from getting birth control.

"[71] In an editorial, the New England Journal of Medicine called the decision "a setback for both the ACA's foundational goal of access to universal health care and for women's health care specifically", voicing concern that "in assessing the competing claims about abortion and birth control, the Court's majority focused on the religious claims of the corporations without discussing scientific or medical opinions.

[74] White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, "Congress needs to take action to solve this problem that's been created and the administration stands ready to work with them to do so.

"[3] Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the RFRA in 1993, said his law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market.

"[75] Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "The mandate overturned today would have required for-profit companies to choose between violating their constitutionally-protected faith or paying crippling fines, which would have forced them to lay off employees or close their doors.

"[68] Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) said, "I am extremely encouraged by today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the religious liberty rights of the Green family of Hobby Lobby.

The court said "Nothing in this interim order affects the ability of the applicant's employees and students to obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.

The court's actions in this case create unnecessary costs and layers of bureaucracy, and they ignore a simple truth: The government must be allowed to handle the basic tasks of public administration in a manner that comports with common sense.

Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general said, "for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else."

Fifteen states had filed a brief arguing that businesses would be able to deny coverage for transfusions, stem cell treatments, and psychiatric care.

[23] In line with the dissenting opinion, The American Prospect asked, "[W]ill the taxpayers have to send a check to employees if employers feel that minimum wage laws violate their religious beliefs?

[23] Mark Kernes, Senior Editor and Chief Legal Analyst for AVN magazine stated in an op-ed piece, "If the Hobby Lobby decision supports the 'right' of companies not to make available birth control that will prevent women from 'catching' a pregnancy, what's to keep those same religious companies from arguing that providing access to PrEP drugs like Truvada, which help prevent gays (and, admittedly, everyone) from catching HIV shouldn't similarly be excluded from their health plans?

[103] As of April 2022, there is an expectation that "Hobby Lobby 2.0" is forthcoming should President Biden pass changes to Obamacare regarding extensions for protections for trans people and the interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex.

[104] Ian Millhiser from Vox.com argued that as a general rule in religious liberty cases prior to the Hobby Lobby decision religion can't be used to diminish the rights of others.