Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
GPTKB entity
Statements (178)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 25, 2014
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Criticized for undermining women's health rights
Relevant to discussions on health care and religious rights Used in legal studies on corporate rights and religious freedom Examined the balance between corporate rights and individual rights |
| gptkbp:case_number |
13-354
Documented in legal journals and analyses |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Exemption granted to Hobby Lobby In favor of Hobby Lobby Increased scrutiny of health care regulations Influenced public policy on health care coverage Allowed Hobby Lobby to refuse certain contraceptive coverage |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Influenced public opinion on healthcare policies
Sparked discussions on the role of religion in business Highlighted tension between religious freedom and women's rights Landmark ruling on corporate personhood |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Constitution
Civil rights case Supported by various religious organizations |
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced debates on women's health rights
Raised questions about corporate personhood Set precedent for future religious freedom cases Potential for more religious exemptions in business practices |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
gptkb:Sylvia_Burwell gptkb:Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc. |
| gptkbp:date |
March 25, 2014
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 30, 2014 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:4
gptkb:Justice_Elena_Kagan gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer Ethical considerations in law Legal precedent for future cases Public health concerns Constitutional implications Women's health rights Impact on public health policy Impact on healthcare policy Corporate rights vs. individual rights Corporate personhood Impact on women's rights Implications for future cases Precedent for future cases Impact on employees Religious exemptions in law Judicial activism concerns Impact on future legislation Access to contraceptives Potential for increased discrimination in the workplace Broader implications for healthcare policy Concerns about the balance of rights Concerns about the future of women's rights Concerns about the implications for civil rights Concerns about the implications for social justice Concerns about the interpretation of the law Concerns about the scope of religious freedom Concerns over religious pluralism Corporate influence in religious matters Corporate interests over individual rights Erosion of women's reproductive rights Impact on access to contraceptives Impact on employer-employee relationships Impact on religious minorities Implications for employee rights Implications for future healthcare regulations Misinterpretation of RFRA Potential for conflicts of interest Potential for discrimination against employees Potential for increased healthcare costs Potential for increased litigation Potential for unequal treatment of employees Risk of religious exemptions being abused Separation of church and state concerns Social implications of the ruling Undermines women's health rights Potential for increased polarization on healthcare issues Impact on the rights of employees in religious organizations Impact on the interpretation of religious freedom laws Concerns about the implications for women's autonomy Concerns about the implications for healthcare access Concerns about the role of government in healthcare Concerns about the implications for reproductive health services Potential for discrimination Balance of religious freedom and rights Balance of rights Effect on employer-employee relationship Government's interest in healthcare Interpretation of religious beliefs Judicial interpretation of RFRA Legal interpretation of RFRA Legal ramifications for businesses Potential for abuse of exemptions Precedent of previous cases Public opinion on contraceptives Religious beliefs in the workplace Religious beliefs vs. public interest Rights of employees vs. employers Role of government in healthcare Scope of religious freedom Corporate interests should not outweigh individual rights Opposed by women's rights groups Critique of the majority's interpretation of religious freedom Potential harm to employees' access to contraceptives |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 30, 2014
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
Future cases involving corporate rights
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
|
| gptkbp:impact |
gptkb:Affordable_Care_Act
Influenced future cases on corporate religious rights Religious exemptions in healthcare Contraceptive coverage under ACA Further cases on religious exemptions Health care coverage for employees |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Sylvia_Burwell
gptkb:Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc. gptkb:Burwell |
| gptkbp:involves |
gptkb:Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.
Sebelius |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
573 U. S. 682
|
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Justices_Anthony_Kennedy
gptkb:Justices_Antonin_Scalia gptkb:Justices_Clarence_Thomas Justices John Roberts Justices Samuel Alito |
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Justices_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Justices Stephen Breyer Justices Sonia Sotomayor Justices Elena Kagan Judicial scrutiny of religious claims |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
|
| gptkbp:legacy |
Continues to influence legal debates on religious freedom.
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
gptkb:Affordable_Care_Act
Health insurance coverage for contraceptives |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Expanded interpretation of religious freedom
Religious exemptions in health care Set a precedent for future religious freedom cases |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Affordable_Care_Act
gptkb:Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act Contraceptive mandate violates religious beliefs Corporations can exercise religion |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Exemption from providing certain contraceptives
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Becket_Fund_for_Religious_Liberty
gptkb:U._S._Department_of_Health_and_Human_Services |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
gptkb:Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_of_1993 |
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_key_point |
Not all businesses are required to provide contraceptive coverage
Religious beliefs of owners are protected |
| gptkbp:material |
Challenge to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive coverage in legal and news media
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Hobby Lobby exempt from contraceptive mandate
Corporations can be exempt from regulations that violate their religious beliefs |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Religious exemptions in healthcare
Establishes religious rights for corporations Contraceptive coverage disputes Corporate personhood and religious freedom Influence on subsequent religious freedom cases Corporations can exercise religious beliefs |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas 5-4 Affirmed the right of closely held corporations to refuse contraceptive coverage |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial decision
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Zubik_v._Burwell
gptkb:Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor_Saints_Peter_and_Paul_Home_v._Pennsylvania Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell Cases involving religious exemptions for businesses |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Debate on religious freedom vs. women's rights
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Corporate personhood and religious rights
First case to rule that closely held corporations can be exempt from regulations on religious grounds First Supreme Court case addressing religious rights of for-profit corporations |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|