Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases of interest to the business community:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause—Protection of Religious-Exercise Rights of For-Profit Corporations and Their Owners—Standard for Finding a Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise and a Compelling Government Interest Inherited Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)—Bankruptcy—Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause—Protection of Religious-Exercise Rights of For-Profit Corporations and Their Owners—Standard for Finding a Substantial Burden on Religious Exercise and a Compelling Government Interest
Section 2000bb-1 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides that the government "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling government interest. Before 1990, the rule in cases brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was that strict scrutiny applied to generally applicable laws that infringed a plaintiff's exercise of religion. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court jettisoned that approach, holding instead that generally applicable laws that burden religious exercise are subject to the less demanding rational-basis standard. Congress passed RFRA to restore use of strict scrutiny in those cases.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires group health plans to include insurance coverage for FDA-approved contraceptives unless the plans or the businesses offering the plans fall into one of several exceptions. Among the FDA-approved contraceptives are two drugs (Plan B and Ella) and two intrauterine devices, which work by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs in the womb.
Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, No. 13-356, to determine whether RFRA exempts for-profit corporations from complying with the Affordable Care Act's contraception-coverage requirement when the corporation's owners assert a sincerely held religious belief against contraception. Conestoga also presents the question whether the contraception-coverage requirement violates the Free Exercise Clause.
The corporate respondents in No. 13-354, Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, are for-profit, closely held corporations that are owned through a trust by...
