Which case recognized corporate religious freedom to refuse contraception coverage under RFRA?

Which case recognized corporate religious freedom to refuse contraception coverage under RFRA?

• A. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
• B. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)
• C. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
• D. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is how RFRA protects religious exercise when a federal rule burdens beliefs, and how the Supreme Court extended that protection to certain corporations. RFRA requires the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when a law substantially burdens religious practice. In this case, the Court held that for-profit corporations can exercise religious beliefs, and therefore can invoke RFRA to challenge federal rules that interfere with those beliefs. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that the ACA contraception mandate would force them to provide coverage for contraception in ways that violated their religious beliefs. The Court agreed that the mandate imposed a substantial burden on the owners’ religious exercise and that the government had not shown the mandate was the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Because RFRA applies to closely held corporations, the Court concluded that the entities at issue could be shielded from the contraception coverage requirement. This decision is focused on corporate religious rights under RFRA and does not broadly extend to all businesses or other contexts. Other listed cases address different issues: one concerns RFRA’s applicability to states and the Fourteenth Amendment, another centers on First Amendment free-speech protections for the press, and the last deals with the incorporation of the Second Amendment.

The main idea here is how RFRA protects religious exercise when a federal rule burdens beliefs, and how the Supreme Court extended that protection to certain corporations. RFRA requires the government to show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when a law substantially burdens religious practice. In this case, the Court held that for-profit corporations can exercise religious beliefs, and therefore can invoke RFRA to challenge federal rules that interfere with those beliefs. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that the ACA contraception mandate would force them to provide coverage for contraception in ways that violated their religious beliefs. The Court agreed that the mandate imposed a substantial burden on the owners’ religious exercise and that the government had not shown the mandate was the least restrictive means to achieve its objectives. Because RFRA applies to closely held corporations, the Court concluded that the entities at issue could be shielded from the contraception coverage requirement.

This decision is focused on corporate religious rights under RFRA and does not broadly extend to all businesses or other contexts. Other listed cases address different issues: one concerns RFRA’s applicability to states and the Fourteenth Amendment, another centers on First Amendment free-speech protections for the press, and the last deals with the incorporation of the Second Amendment.