Burwell V. Hobby Lobby Case Study
In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court made the wrong decision because a company is not a person and thus does not have the same rights as one. Hobby Lobby employs 23,000 people, all of which could receive all 20 state covered forms of birth-control. The owner of Hobby Lobby felt that certain forms terminated a life, which many doctors disagree with. Hobby Lobby claimed they were being forced to allow employees to receive these forms violated their religious rights and decided to pursue a court case against the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell. Hobby Lobby is a Christian family owned business who provides their 23,000 employees with health care through the US government. In 2014 Obamacare
…show more content…
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and filed a lawsuit. The district court denied Hobby Lobby’s request for a preliminary injunction. In March 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed a hearing of the case. In June the appeals court sided with Hobby Lobby and said that a company had the same rights of a person and could restrict women’s access to contraception on religious grounds. In September the US appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sided with the district court and Hobby Lobby with a 5 to 4 vote. The main argument was if a “closely held” business (a private business with no stockholders) has the same rights as a human does. The dissenting opinion states that because a corporation is a mass grouping of people that the owner’s views may not represent everyone’s views and that "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." (Ginsburg, Ruth) The majority said that when a family starts a business they should not lose their constitutional rights. In order to apply to the ability to remove certain things based on religious grounds they have to be closely
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and filed a lawsuit. The district court denied Hobby Lobby’s request for a preliminary injunction. In March 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit allowed a hearing of the case. In June the appeals court sided with Hobby Lobby and said that a company had the same rights of a person and could restrict women’s access to contraception on religious grounds. In September the US appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sided with the district court and Hobby Lobby with a 5 to 4 vote. The main argument was if a “closely held” business (a private business with no stockholders) has the same rights as a human does. The dissenting opinion states that because a corporation is a mass grouping of people that the owner’s views may not represent everyone’s views and that "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." (Ginsburg, Ruth) The majority said that when a family starts a business they should not lose their constitutional rights. In order to apply to the ability to remove certain things based on religious grounds they have to be closely