Owners of closely held private businesses do not have to provide free access to contraceptive drugs that violate their religious convictions, the United States Supreme Court ruled June 30 in a case that has been watched closely because of its potentially far-reaching implications for religious liberty.

In a 54 ruling, the court determined that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, Christian-owned companies, do not have to comply with a federal regulation under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires employers to either offer insurance coverage for all government-approved contraceptive drugs including those that might cause abortions or pay substantial fines.

Though the case dealt narrowly with closely held, for-profit corporations, it has been watched closely by faith-based nonprofit organizations such as 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 that have similar objections to the ACA. To date, 51 lawsuits have been filed by over 120 nonprofit organizations including 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 to challenge the ACA mandate on the grounds that it violates federal protections of religious liberty. In December 2013, 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 was granted a preliminary injunction by the court relieving 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 from complying with the mandate while its lawsuit against the federal government proceeds.

In response to the highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling, Gregory S. Baylor, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 in its case, answered questions about the implications of the Hobby Lobby decision as well as the status of 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s ongoing federal lawsuit.

What did the U.S. Supreme Court decide in the Hobby Lobby case?

Baylor: The court held that the federal government violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by forcing two for-profit businesses and their religiously pro-life family owners to include abortifacients in their employee health insurance plans. To reach that ultimate conclusion, the court held: (1) that closely held for-profit corporations are able to exercise religion and thus invoke legal protections of religious exercise; (2) that the mandate substantially burdened the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga; and (3) that the mandate was not the least restrictive means of advancing the governments stated interests in public health and womens equality.

Does this decision have any bearing on 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s case?

Baylor: The courts adjudicating 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s civil rights challenge to the mandate will, of course, have the final say regarding the significance of the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga decision to 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s claims. But the Supreme Courts decision should be helpful to 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s cause. The court indicated that government substantially burdens religious exercise in violation of RFRA whenever it imposes significant pressure upon an individual or organization to violate its religious convictions. The federal government is pressuring 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 to violate its religious beliefs by complying with the abortion pill mandate, and 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 would suffer the same financial penalties for non-compliance that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga faced.

Whats the status of 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s federal lawsuit?

Baylor: 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 remains protected from the mandate by the preliminary injunction the district court awarded back in December 2013. The government appealed that injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and briefing is underway. The parties will undoubtedly discuss the relevance of the Supreme Courts decision to 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s claims.

Why is 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 opposed to the mandate?

Baylor: First, the mandate inappropriately distinguishes among types of religious organizations without good reason. Churches and church-controlled organizations are exempt; intentionally religious educational institutions like 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 are not. Second, the mandate forces 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 to engage in conduct (facilitating access to abortifacients) that it considers to be sinful. Also, complying with the mandate undermines its freedom to foster a community that shares a commitment to Christian principles, including the sanctity of life.

For more information, see previous coverage of 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023s federal lawsuit in and . Additionally, 晩晩当際際夊消消夊2023 professors Scott Rae and Tom Wilson recently about the business, ethical and legal issues related to the Hobby Lobby case.