Hobby Lobby Case: Owner Encouraged After Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Oral Argument
Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard from two family-owned businesses with deeply devout owners that seek to avoid offering birth control methods that conflict with their beliefs today. During the 90-minute oral argument this morning, the justices and lawyers got spirited at times over religious rights and federal mandates.  

The cases Hobby Lobby Stores vs. Sebelius, and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius have become the poster cases for religious freedom vs Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act. Today their attorneys presented their cases to the Supreme Court and heard from the Justices.

According the the Washington Post, It was difficult to predict from the argument which side would prevail, but the government had the tougher task: to prove that the requirement did not violate a federal statute that gives great protection to the exercise of religion.

While demonstators for both sides of the issue braved cold weather outside the court, the debate inside got hot at times.  This was the second time 'Obamacare' had been before the Supreme Court. Two years ago, in a 5-4 decision, it was found constitutional, but this time the decision facing the court was much more specific, and the challengers had more to lean on legally.  

The question at hand:  Can the government burden employers to provide all the coverage that it's HHS, or contraceptive mandate, demands?

Related: Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case: Justices Divided After Hearing Oral Argument (Full Transcript) 

According to USA Today, the court's chamber was packed for the debate.

The contraceptive requirement has been the subject of more than 100 lawsuits across the country, including 78 that are still pending. More than 80 outside groups submitted briefs to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case alone.

The justices were predictably divided in their reaction to the sides, according the to the USA Today article, but did not seem to want to force for-profit corporations to offer health plans that include birth control methods they claim cause abortions.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. clearly sought to avoid the inconclusive medical debate over intrauterine devices and morning-after pills, and tried to say that because nearly 2 million women use some types of the controversional type of contraception, then they must not view it as abortive.

Paul Clement. a Washington Attorney who represents the two companies involved, argued that the issue of contraception is "so fraught with religious controversy" that an exception should be made for the family-owned companies, as it was for churches and religious non-profits, such as charities and universities.

"Everything would be piecemeal, and nothing would be uniform," Justice Elen Kagan challenged, upon hearing this position from Clement.

The court's liberal judges also questioned whether for-profit corporations should be able to claim religious views; but the conservative Justices pointed out that the federal government had far less burdensome ways of providing women contraceptive coverage, and took exception to the argument that corporations cannot have religious objections.

"There's not a single case that says a for-profit enterprise cannot make a religious claim," Justice Antonin Scalia said.

"Isn't that what we're talking about?" Chief Justice John Roberts demanded of the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

The central focus of the companies position was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993. It was designed to give those with religious beliefs a way of fighting back against laws they consider a violation of their sacred beliefs.

If the companies fail to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the mandate, they face fines of $100 per day per employee. That could cost Hobby Lobby alone over $450 million a year in fines.  It would be much less expensive to drop health coverage, Justice Kagan noted.

Hobby Lobby argues that having to drop coverage would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and potentially drive them out of business.

After the arguments, some from Hobby Lobby felt like maybe the advantage in the courtroom was theirs.

"We believe that Americans don't lose their religious freedoms when they open a family business," Barbara Green, one of Hobby Lobby's owners, told reporters. "We were encouraged by today's arguments." 

    Most Popular
  • Is 'The Last Supper' worth watching? Audience and critics weigh in

    Is 'The Last Supper' worth watching? Audience and critics weigh in

    Faith-based films often receive mixed reactions, and The Last Supper is no exception. The movie attempts to bring a fresh perspective to one of the most iconic moments in Christian history, but does it succeed? Some reviews from critics and audiences provide insight into its strengths and shortcomings.

  • ‘The Chosen’ Season 5: The darkest season yet—What to know before watching

    The wait is over—The Chosen is back with its fifth season, and this time, things are getting intense. The new episodes dive straight into the final days of Jesus’ life, covering some of the most emotional and dramatic moments in the Bible. If you’ve been following the series, you already know that The Chosen isn’t just about retelling familiar stories—it’s about bringing them to life in a way that feels real.

  • Massacres in Syria: Over 1,000 dead, including Christians and Alawites

    Syria’s coastal regions have been devastated by a series of massacres, with reports indicating that over 1,000 people—many from Christian and Alawite communities—have been killed in brutal attacks. Entire families have been wiped out, and survivors are fleeing in search of safety as sectarian violence escalates.

  • Kim Sae-ron and Wheesung: The tragic irony of Korean society and the principles of happiness

    Not long ago, the media was in an uproar over actress Kim Sae-ron’s passing. Just months before, the same people who had relentlessly criticized her for her DUI incident were now expressing sympathy, saying, "The world was too harsh on her." The irony is impossible to ignore.

  • Newsboys move forward as a quartet after Michael Tait’s departure

    After more than a decade as the lead singer of the Newsboys, Michael Tait has officially parted ways with the band, marking a significant shift in the Christian rock group’s lineup. The remaining members—Jeff Frankenstein, Jody Davis, Duncan Phillips, and Adam Agee—have assured fans that they will continue forward, embracing a new season of music and ministry.