Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164843
W.D. Okla.2012Background
- Plaintiffs challenge ACA preventive services mandate, arguing it requires coverage for abortion-inducing drugs and related education.
- Greens (owners of Hobby Lobby and Mardel) are private for-profit corporations managed under a family trust and claim their religious beliefs prohibit such coverage.
- Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not exempt religious employers under the ACA and do not have grandfathered plans; penalties would be incurred if noncompliant.
- HRSA adopted IOM’s contraceptive recommendations; regulations require non-grandfathered plans to cover contraceptives unless exempt.
- The Greens allege the mandate burdens their religious exercise and seek a preliminary injunction to stay enforcement.
- Court analyzes First Amendment Free Exercise and RFRA claims, applying standard injunctive relief analysis and noting regulatory scheme context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on Free Exercise | Greens have free exercise rights; corporations lack such rights. | Regulations are neutral and generally applicable, not targeting religion; corporations lack free exercise rights. | Greens unlikely to prove Free Exercise violation; corporations lack standing |
| RFRA substantial burden and personhood | RFRA protects the Greens' exercise of religion; Hobby Lobby and Mardel are within RFRA as persons. | RFRA does not extend to secular, for-profit corporations; only individuals may be RFRA 'persons'. | Hobby Lobby and Mardel not RFRA persons; Greens’ RFRA claims unlikely to succeed |
| Neutrality and general applicability of the mandate | Exemptions create nonneutral, non-general applicability; harms believers disproportionately. | Mandate is neutral and generally applicable; exemptions do not negate neutrality. | Mandate neutral and generally applicable; rational basis scrutiny applies; no likelihood of constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643 (10th Cir. 2006) (neutral general-applicability test and scrutiny framework for RFRA/First Amendment)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court 1993) (neutrality and general applicability governs free exercise scrutiny)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court 2006) (RFRA substantive protections for religious exercise)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial burden standards in RFRA/RLUIPA context)
- United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (Supreme Court 1982) (religious burdens and commercial activity interaction guidance)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (Supreme Court 1981) (direct personal burdens and compelled conduct precedents for substantial burden)