Hobby Lobby Victory

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that both employers and employees should be free to choose when it comes to conscience and healthcare. The government cannot impose laws upon family businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, that would force them to violate their conscience and deeply held religious beliefs. 

The HHS mandate, which would have forced Hobby Lobby to pay for sterilizations, contraception and drugs that have the potential to destroy an unborn child, forced family businesses like Hobby Lobby to choose between violating their convictions or paying fines of up to $100 per employee per day if they did not comply.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in favor of Hobby Lobby.

We are thankful that the Court ruled in favor of the religious freedom of American business owners, and hope that this will also lead to favorable rulings in similar cases for non-profits and religious groups.

---

Quick Facts about the Hobby Lobby Ruling

1. The Hobby Lobby decision only applies to closely held corporations. (i.e. Corporations are considered closely held if 50% of the stock or more is held by five individuals of less.)
2. The Court ruling is extremely narrow, specifically noting that such things as blood transfusions are not covered by the ruling.
   
3. The Court's ruling does not mean that the Government cannot provide the contraceptives free of charge - and the Court actually suggests this.
4. Hobby Lobby already provided 16 of the 20 HHS mandated contraceptives
5. While it is unclear whether Plan B can cause abortion, Ella, (another of the required contraceptives) is known to induce abortion.
6. The Court used the Compelling Interest test and stated that the Government does have a compelling interest in this area. The only reason the mandate failed is because the mandate provides a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby (to the tune of $1.3 million per day), while it is not the least restrictive means to provide contraception, (the Court suggests that the Government provide it.)
   

In conclusion, although it is a victory, it is merely a small step in the right direction. The Court missed an opportunity to set a high standard for religious liberty, rather than merely slowing the erosion of this fundamental right. We are still grateful for this decision, but look forward to a time when the Court will be much more forceful for liberty.