The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections. It accordingly reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

to Brief for Petitioners in No. Hobby Lobby is organized as a for-profit corporation under Oklahoma law. Reg.

This reference, the Court submits, incorporates the definition of “person” found in the Dictionary Act, Instead, Congress authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a component of HHS, to make that important and sensitive decision. The genesis of this coverage should enlighten the Court’s resolution of these cases. The companies could face penalties of $2,000 per employee each year. HHS responds that many legal requirements have exceptions and the existence of exceptions does not in itself indicate that the principal interest served by a law is not compelling. Reg.

723 F. 3d, at 1140–1147. (iii) Also flawed is the claim that RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents, none of which squarely recognized free-exercise rights for for-profit corporations. Congress acted on that understanding when, as part of a nationwide insurance program intended to be comprehensive, it called for coverage of preventive care responsive to women’s needs. See, e.g., Smith, 494 U. S., at 887 (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine . But the Lee Court made two key points one cannot confine to tax cases. as Amici Curiae 8 (hereinafter Senators  Brief ) (RFRA was approved by a 97-to-3 vote in the Senate and a voice vote in the House of Representatives).

–13(a)(1)–(3) (group health plans must provide coverage, without cost sharing, for (1) certain “evidence-based items or services” recommended by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force; (2) immunizations recommended by an advisory committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and (3) “with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration”). Brief for Ovarian Cancer National Alliance et al. Ante, at 45–46. (a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel.


[31] According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . See at 19 (dismissing the relevance of in part because “[t]he free exercise claim asserted there was promptly rejected on the merits”).

699 (1989) He sincerely believed that withholding Social Security taxes from his employees or paying the employer’s share of such taxes would violate the Amish faith. See Eisenberg, McNicholas, & Peipert, Cost as a Barrier to Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) Use in Adolescents, 52 J. Adolescent Health S59, S60 (2013). 26178 (statement of Sen. Kennedy). See v. , ___ F. Supp. 2010) (emphasis added); see 1A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §102 (rev. Stat., Tit. 38–49.

See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al.

(similar). . In making that recommendation, the IOM’s report expressed concerns similar to those voiced by congres-sional proponents of the Women’s Health Amendment. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits a closely held for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Reg.

13–6827, p. 10, now pending before the Court. 13–354, at 7–8.[19]. 103–88, pp. Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-working business in his garage, and since then, this company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, has grown and now has 950 employees. Courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving disputes. (3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses.

of Central School Dist. First, nothing in the text of RFRA as originally enacted suggested that the statutory phrase “exercise of religion under the

42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a) (emphasis added). In its Guidelines,HRSA exempted these organizations from the requirement to cover contraceptive services. ACA does not create a large national pool of tax revenue for use in purchasing healthcare coverage. Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. First Amendment case law, Congress deleted the reference to the Fifty years ago, Norman Hahn started a wood-working business in his garage, and since then, this company, Conestoga Wood Specialties, has grown and now has 950 employees.

HHS has never argued this and the Court does not know its position with respect to the argument. 2d ___, 2014 WL 2547584 (EDNY, June 5, 2014) (dismissing free exercise challenges to New York’s vaccination practices); Liberty Counsel, Compulsory Vaccinations Threaten Religious Freedom (2007), available at http://www.lc.org/ media/9980/attachments/memo_vaccination.pdf. in this context is to determine” whether the line drawn reflects “an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute that it does.

In Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc., See, , M. Sanders, Joint Ventures Involving Tax-Exempt Organizations 555 (4th ed.

As we explain, see infra, at 43–44, the Government can readily arrange for other methods of providing contraceptives, without cost sharing, to employees who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance plans due to their employers’ religious objections.
See There are now 500 Hobby Lobby stores, and the company has more than 13,000 employees. 26 CFR §1.501(c)(3)–1(c)(3). Because of their faith, these merchants closed their shops on Saturday, and they argued that requiring them to remain shut on Sunday threatened them with financial ruin. 1 See also post, at 8 (“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga .

One of David’s sons started an affiliated business, Mardel, which operates 35 Christian bookstores and employs close to 400 people. See, e.g., id., at 47.

the plausibility of a religious claim”? The Hahns exercise sole ownership of the closely held business; they control its board of directors and hold all of its voting shares.

And in any event, even if a rejected amendment to a bill could be relevant in other contexts, it surely cannot be relevant here, because any “Federal statutory law adopted after November 16, 1993 is subject to [RFRA] unless such law such application by reference to [RFRA].” It seems likely, however, that the cost of providing the forms of contraceptives at issue in these cases (if not all FDA-approved contraceptives) would be minor when compared with the overall cost of ACA.