burwell secretary health human services et al hobby lobby stores et argued march decided june religious freedom restoration act rfra prohibits government substantially burden ing person exercise religion even burden results rule general applicability unless government demonstrates application burden person furtherance compelling governmental interest least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest amended religious land use institutionalized persons act rluipa rfra covers exercise religion whether compelled central system religious belief issue regulations promulgated department health human services hhs patient protection affordable care act aca relevant requires specified employers group health plans furnish preventive care screenings women without cost sharing requirements congress specify types preventive care must covered authorized health resources services administration component hhs decide ibid nonexempt employers generally required provide coverage contraceptive methods approved food drug administration including may effect preventing already fertilized egg developing inhibiting attachment uterus religious employers churches exempt contraceptive mandate hhs also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations religious objections providing coverage contraceptive services accommodation insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage employer plan provide plan participants separate payments contraceptive services without imposing requirements employer insurance plan employee beneficiaries cases owners three closely held corporations sincere christian beliefs life begins conception violate religion facilitate access contraceptive drugs devices operate point separate actions sued hhs federal officials agencies collectively hhs rfra free exercise clause seeking enjoin application contraceptive mandate insofar requires provide health coverage four objectionable contraceptives district denied hahns company conestoga wood specialties preliminary injunction affirming third circuit held corporation engage religious exercise rfra first amendment mandate imposed requirements hahns personal capacity greens children companies hobby lobby stores mardel also denied preliminary injunction tenth circuit reversed held greens businesses persons rfra corporations established likelihood success rfra claim contraceptive mandate substantially burdened exercise religion hhs demonstrated compelling interest enforcing mandate alternative held hhs proved mandate least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest held applied closely held corporations hhs regulations imposing contraceptive mandate violate rfra pp rfra applies regulations govern activities closely held corporations like conestoga hobby lobby mardel pp hhs argues companies sue corporations owners sue regulations apply companies leave merchants difficult choice give right seek judicial protection religious liberty forgo benefits operating corporations rfra text shows congress designed statute provide broad protection religious liberty intend put merchants choice employed familiar legal fiction including corporations within rfra definition persons purpose extending rights corporations protect rights people associated corporation including shareholders officers employees protecting rights closely held corporations thus protects religious liberty humans control pp hhs dissent make several unpersuasive arguments pp nothing rfra suggests congressional intent depart dictionary act definition person include corporations well individuals entertained rfra claims brought nonprofit corporations see gonzales centro espírita beneficiente união vegetal hhs concession nonprofit corporation person rfra effectively dispatches argument term reach corporations conceivable definition person includes natural persons nonprofit corporations corporations pp ii hhs dissent nonetheless argue rfra cover conestoga hobby lobby mardel exercise religion offer persuasive explanation conclusion corporate form alone explain rfra indisputably protects nonprofit corporations objective corporations explain entertained claims individuals attempting make profit retail merchants braunfeld brown business practices compelled limited tenets religious doctrine fall comfortably within understanding exercise religion set employment dept human resources smith suggestion corporations incapable exercising religion purpose simply make money flies face modern corporate law including plaintiff corporations incorporated authorize corporations pursue lawful purpose business including pursuit profit conformity owners religious principles pp iii also flawed claim rfra offers protection codified free exercise clause precedents none squarely recognized rights corporations first nothing rfra originally enacted suggested definition exercise religion meant tied interpretations first amendment second rfra original text clear enough rluipa amendment surely dispels doubt congress intended separate definition phrase first amendment case law third case gallagher crown kosher super market suggests anything corporations exercise religion finally results absurd rfra law enacted provide broad protection religious liberty merely restored decisions ossified form restricted rfra claims plaintiffs fell within category plaintiffs whose claims recognized smith pp finally hhs contends congress wanted rfra apply corporations difficulty ascertaining beliefs large publicly traded corporations hhs pointed example publicly traded corporation asserting rfra rights numerous practical restraints likely prevent occurring hhs also provided evidence purported problem determining sincerity asserted religious belief moved congress exclude corporations rfra protection disputes among owners corporations might arise problem unique context state corporate law provides ready means resolving conflicts example dictating corporation establish governing structure courts turn structure underlying state law resolving disputes pp hhs contraceptive mandate substantially burdens exercise religion pp requires hahns greens engage conduct seriously violates sincere religious belief life begins conception companies refuse provide contraceptive coverage face severe economic consequences million per year hobby lobby million per year conestoga million per year mardel drop coverage altogether face penalties roughly million hobby lobby million conestoga mardel amici supporting hhs argue penalty less average cost providing insurance therefore dropping insurance coverage eliminates substantial burden imposed mandate hhs never argued know position respect argument even reached argument find unpersuasive ignores fact plaintiffs religious reasons providing coverage employees far clear net cost companies providing insurance cost dropping insurance plans paying aca penalty pp hhs argues connection objecting parties must end find morally wrong attenuated employee choose coverage contraceptive method uses rfra question whether mandate imposes substantial burden objecting parties ability conduct business accordance religious beliefs belief hahns greens implicates difficult important question religion moral philosophy namely circumstances immoral person perform act innocent effect enabling facilitating commission immoral act another say religious beliefs plaintiffs mistaken unreasonable fact considered rejected nearly identical argument thomas review bd indiana employment security narrow function determine whether plaintiffs asserted religious belief reflects honest conviction dispute tilton richardson board ed central school dist allen distinguished pp assumes interest guaranteeing access four challenged contraceptive methods compelling governmental interest government failed show contraceptive mandate least restrictive means furthering interest pp assumes interest guaranteeing access four challenged contraceptive methods compelling within meaning rfra pp government failed satisfy rfra standard hhs shown lacks means achieving desired goal without imposing substantial burden exercise religion government assume cost providing four contraceptives women unable obtain coverage due employers religious objections extend accommodation hhs already established religious nonprofit organizations employers religious objections contraceptive mandate accommodation impinge plaintiffs religious beliefs providing insurance coverage contraceptives issue violates religion still serves hhs stated interests pp decision concerns contraceptive mandate understood hold mandates vaccinations blood transfusions must necessarily fall conflict employer religious beliefs provide shield employers might cloak illegal discrimination religious practice lee upheld payment social security taxes despite employer religious objection analogous turned primarily special problems associated national system taxation lee rfra case fundamental point still less restrictive alternative categorical requirement pay taxes alternative contraceptive mandate pp affirmed reversed remanded alito delivered opinion roberts scalia kennedy thomas joined kennedy filed concurring opinion ginsburg filed dissenting opinion sotomayor joined breyer kagan joined part breyer kagan filed dissenting opinion opinion notice opinion subject formal revision publication preliminary print reports readers requested notify reporter decisions washington typographical formal errors order corrections may made preliminary print goes press nos et et al et et al writ certiorari appeals tenth circuit writ certiorari appeals third circuit june justice alito delivered opinion must decide cases whether religious freedom restoration act rfra stat et permits department health human services hhs demand three closely held corporations provide coverage methods contraception violate sincerely held religious beliefs companies owners hold regulations impose obligation violate rfra prohibits federal government taking action substantially burdens exercise religion unless action constitutes least restrictive means serving compelling government interest holding hhs mandate unlawful reject hhs argument owners companies forfeited rfra protection decided organize businesses corporations rather sole proprietorships general partnerships plain terms rfra make perfectly clear congress discriminate way men women wish run businesses corporations manner required religious beliefs since rfra applies cases must decide whether challenged hhs regulations substantially burden exercise religion hold owners businesses religious objections abortion according religious beliefs four contraceptive methods issue abortifacients owners comply hhs mandate believe facilitating abortions comply pay heavy price much million per day million per year case one companies consequences amount substantial burden hard see rfra government action imposes substantial burden religious exercise must serve compelling government interest assume hhs regulations satisfy requirement order hhs mandate sustained must also constitute least restrictive means serving interest mandate plainly fails test ways congress hhs equally ensure every woman access particular contraceptives issue indeed contraceptives fact hhs already devised implemented system seeks respect religious liberty religious nonprofit corporations ensuring employees entities precisely access contraceptives employees companies whose owners religious objections providing coverage employees religious nonprofit corporations still access insurance coverage without cost sharing contraceptives according hhs system imposes net economic burden insurance companies required provide secure coverage although hhs made system available religious nonprofits religious objections contraceptive mandate hhs provided reason system made available owners corporations similar religious objections therefore conclude system constitutes alternative achieves government aims providing greater respect religious liberty rfra conclusion means enforcement hhs contraceptive mandate objecting parties cases unlawful description reasoning shows holding specific hold principal dissent alleges corporations commercial enterprises opt law saving tax laws judge incompatible sincerely held religious beliefs post opinion ginsburg hold dissent implies corporations free rein take steps impose disadvantages others require general public pick tab post certainly hold suggest rfra demands accommodation corporation religious beliefs matter impact accommodation may thousands women employed hobby lobby post effect accommodation women employed hobby lobby companies involved cases precisely zero accommodation women still entitled contraceptives without cost sharing congress enacted rfra order provide broad protection religious liberty rfra enactment came three years decision employment dept human resources smith largely repudiated method analyzing claims used cases like sherbert verner wisconsin yoder determining whether challenged government actions violated free exercise clause first amendment decisions used balancing test took account whether challenged action imposed substantial burden practice religion whether needed serve compelling government interest applying test held sherbert employee fired refusing work sabbath denied unemployment benefits yoder held amish children required comply state law demanding remain school age even though religion required focus uniquely amish values beliefs formative adolescent years smith however rejected balancing test set forth sherbert smith concerned two members native american church fired ingesting peyote sacramental purposes sought unemployment benefits state oregon rejected claims ground consumption peyote crime oregon applying sherbert test held denial benefits violated free exercise clause reversed observing use sherbert test whenever person objected religious grounds enforcement generally applicable law open prospect constitutionally required religious exemptions civic obligations almost every conceivable kind therefore held first amendment neutral generally applicable laws may applied religious practices even supported compelling governmental interest city boerne flores congress responded smith enacting rfra aws toward religion congress found may burden religious exercise surely laws intended interfere religious exercise see also order ensure broad protection religious liberty rfra provides government shall substantially burden person exercise religion even burden results rule general applicability government substantially burdens person exercise religion act person entitled exemption rule unless government demonstrates application burden person furtherance compelling governmental interest least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest enacted rfra applied federal government constitutional authority invoked regulating federal state agencies differed applied federal agency rfra based enumerated power supports particular agency attempting regulate subdivisions congress relied power section fourteenth amendment enforce first amendment city boerne however held congress overstepped section authority stringent test rfra demands far exceed ed pattern practice unconstitutional conduct free exercise clause interpreted smith see also following decision city boerne congress passed religious land use institutionalized persons act rluipa stat et seq statute enacted congress commerce spending clause powers imposes general test rfra limited category governmental actions see cutter wilkinson relevant present purposes rluipa amended rfra definition exercise religion see importing rluipa definition rluipa rfra definition made reference first amendment see ed defining exercise religion exercise religion first amendment rluipa obvious effort effect complete separation first amendment case law congress deleted reference first amendment defined exercise religion include exercise religion whether compelled central system religious belief congress mandated concept construed favor broad protection religious exercise maximum extent permitted terms chapter constitution issue cases hhs regulations promulgated patient protection affordable care act aca stat aca generally requires employers employees offer group health plan group health insurance coverage provides minimum essential coverage covered employer provide coverage must pay substantial price specifically covered employer provides group health insurance plan fails comply aca requirements employer may required pay per day affected individual employer decides stop providing health insurance altogether least one employee enrolls health plan qualifies subsidy one aca exchanges employer must pay per year employees unless exception applies aca requires employer group health plan coverage furnish preventive care screenings women without cost sharing requirements congress however specify types preventive care must covered instead congress authorized health resources services administration hrsa component hhs make important sensitive decision ibid hrsa turn consulted institute medicine nonprofit group volunteer advisers determining preventive services require see fed reg august based institute recommendations hrsa promulgated women preventive services guidelines see online http internet materials visited june available clerk case file guidelines provide nonexempt employers generally required provide coverage without cost sharing food drug administration fda approved contraceptive methods sterilization procedures patient education counseling fed reg internal quotation marks omitted although many required methods contraception work preventing fertilization egg four methods specifically issue cases may effect preventing already fertilized egg developing inhibiting attachment uterus see brief hhs pp fda birth control medicines help hhs also authorized hrsa establish exemptions contraceptive mandate religious employers cfr category encompasses churches integrated auxiliaries conventions associations churches well exclusively religious activities religious order see ibid citing iii guidelines hrsa exempted organizations requirement cover contraceptive services see http womensguidelines addition hhs effectively exempted certain religious nonprofit organizations described hhs regulations eligible organizations contraceptive mandate see cfr fed reg eligible organization means nonprofit organization holds religious organization opposes providing coverage contraceptive services required covered account religious objections cfr qualify accommodation employer must certify organization issuer receives notice one clients invoked provision issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage employer plan provide separate payments contraceptive services plan participants without imposing requirements eligible organization insurance plan employee beneficiaries although procedure requires issuer bear cost services hhs determined obligation impose net expense issuers cost less equal cost savings resulting services fed reg addition exemptions religious organizations aca exempts great many employers coverage requirements employers providing grandfathered health plans existed prior march made specified changes date need comply many act requirements including contraceptive mandate employers fewer employees required provide health insurance told contraceptive mandate presently apply tens millions people attributable large part grandfathered health plans million nonelderly people america health plans enrolled grandfathered plans brief hhs kaiser family foundation health research educational trust employer health benefits annual survey count employees working firms provide insurance employ fewer employees million workers see whitehouse health reform small businesses affordable care act increases choice saving money small businesses ii norman elizabeth hahn three sons devout members mennonite church christian denomination mennonite church opposes abortion believes fetus earliest stages shares humanity conceived fifty years ago norman hahn started business garage since company conestoga wood specialties grown employees conestoga organized pennsylvania law corporation hahns exercise sole ownership closely held business control board directors hold voting shares one hahn sons serves president ceo hahns believe required run business accordance religious beliefs moral principles supp ed end company mission see operate professional environment founded upon highest ethical moral christian principles ibid internal quotation marks omitted company vision values statements affirms conestoga endeavors ensur reasonable profit manner reflects hahns christian heritage app complaint explained conestoga statement sanctity human life hahns believe human life begins conception internal quotation marks omitted therefore moral conviction involved termination human life conception believe sin god held accountable ibid internal quotation marks omitted hahns accordingly excluded plan offer employees certain contraceptive methods consider abortifacients hahns conestoga sued hhs federal officials agencies rfra free exercise clause first amendment seeking enjoin application aca contraceptive mandate insofar requires provide coverage four contraceptives may operate fertilization include two forms emergency contraception commonly called morning pills two types intrauterine opposing requirement provide coverage contraceptives object hahns argued immoral sinful intentionally participate pay facilitate otherwise support drugs ibid district denied preliminary injunction see supp third circuit affirmed divided opinion holding secular corporations engage religious exercise within meaning rfra first amendment third circuit also rejected claims brought hahns concluded hhs andate impose requirements hahns personal capacity david barbara green three children christians operate two family businesses years ago david green started store grown nationwide chain called hobby lobby hobby lobby stores company employees hobby lobby organized corporation oklahoma law one david sons started affiliated business mardel operates christian bookstores employs close people ibid mardel also organized corporation oklahoma law though two businesses expanded years remain closely held david barbara children retain exclusive control companies ibid david serves ceo hobby lobby three children serve president vice president vice ceo see brief respondents hobby lobby statement purpose commits greens onoring lord operating company manner consistent biblical principles app pp complaint family member signed pledge run businesses accordance family religious beliefs use family assets support christian ministries accordance commitments hobby lobby mardel stores close sundays even though greens calculate lose millions sales annually app businesses refuse engage profitable transactions facilitate promote alcohol use contribute profits christian missionaries ministries buy hundreds newspaper ads inviting people know jesus lord savior ibid internal quotation marks omitted like hahns greens believe life begins conception violate religion facilitate access contraceptive drugs devices operate point specifically object four contraceptive methods hahns like hahns objection methods birth control although plan predates enactment aca grandfathered plan hobby lobby elected retain grandfathered status contraceptive mandate proposed greens hobby lobby mardel sued hhs federal agencies officials challenge contraceptive mandate rfra free exercise district denied preliminary injunction see supp wd plaintiffs appealed moving initial en banc consideration tenth circuit granted motion reversed divided opinion contrary conclusion third circuit tenth circuit held greens two businesses persons within meaning rfra therefore may bring suit law held corporations established likelihood success rfra claim concluded contraceptive mandate substantially burdened exercise religion requiring companies choose compromis ing religious beliefs paying heavy fee either close million taxes every year simply refused provide coverage contraceptives issue roughly million annually drop ped benefits employees next held hhs failed demonstrate compelling interest enforcing mandate greens businesses alternative hhs failed prove enforcement mandate least restrictive means furthering government asserted interests emphasis deleted internal quotation marks omitted concluding companies demonstrated irreparable harm reversed remanded district consider remaining factors test granted certiorari iii rfra prohibits government substantially burden ing person exercise religion even burden results rule general applicability unless government demonstrates application burden person furtherance compelling governmental interest least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest emphasis added first question must address whether provision applies regulations govern activities corporations like hobby lobby conestoga mardel hhs contends neither companies owners even heard rfra according hhs companies sue seek make profit owners owners heard regulations least formal matter apply companies owners individuals hhs argument dramatic consequences consider decision braunfeld brown plurality opinion case five orthodox jewish merchants ran small retail businesses philadelphia challenged pennsylvania sunday closing law violation free exercise clause faith merchants closed shops saturday argued requiring remain shut sunday threatened financial ruin entertained claim although ruled merits similar claim raised today rfra jurisdiction still subject act example district columbia see merchants entitled heard according hhs however merchants chose incorporate businesses without way changing size nature businesses forfeit rfra rights hhs put merchants difficult choice either give right seek judicial protection religious liberty forgo benefits available competitors operating corporations seen rfra designed provide broad protection religious liberty enacting rfra congress went far beyond held constitutionally reason think congress enacted sweeping protection put owners choice hhs suggests examination rfra text turn next part opinion reveals congress thing show congress provided protection people like hahns greens employing familiar legal fiction included corporations within rfra definition persons important keep mind purpose fiction provide protection human beings corporation simply form organization used human beings achieve desired ends established body law specifies rights obligations people including shareholders officers employees associated corporation one way another rights whether constitutional statutory extended corporations purpose protect rights people example extending fourth amendment protection corporations protects privacy interests employees others associated company protecting corporations government seizure property without compensation protects stake corporations financial protecting rights corporations like hobby lobby conestoga mardel protects religious liberty humans control companies holding conestoga secular corporation lacks rfra protection third circuit wrote follows general business corporations separate apart actions belief systems individual owners employees exercise religion pray worship observe sacraments take actions separate apart intention direction individual actors emphasis added true quite beside point corporations separate apart human beings run employed anything noted rfra applies person exercise religion rfra define term person therefore look dictionary act must consult determining meaning act congress unless context indicates otherwise dictionary act wor include corporations companies associations firms partnerships societies joint stock companies well individuals ibid see fcc slip doubt legal setting often refers artificial entities dictionary act makes clear thus unless something rfra context indicates otherwise dictionary act provides quick clear affirmative answer question whether companies involved cases may heard see nothing rfra suggests congressional intent depart dictionary act definition hhs makes little effort argue otherwise entertained rfra claims brought nonprofit corporations see gonzales centro espírita beneficiente união vegetal rfra evangelical lutheran church school eeoc free exercise church lukumi babalu aye hialeah free exercise hhs concedes nonprofit corporation person within meaning rfra see brief hhs reply brief concession effectively dispatches argument term person used rfra reach closely held corporations involved cases known understanding term person includes corporations term person sometimes encompasses artificial persons dictionary act instructs sometimes limited natural persons conceivable definition term includes natural persons nonprofit corporations cf clark martinez give th words different meaning category invent statute rather interpret one principal argument advanced hhs principal dissent regarding rfra protection hobby lobby conestoga mardel focuses statutory term person phrase exercise religion according hhs dissent corporations protected rfra exercise religion neither hhs dissent however provides persuasive explanation conclusion corporate form corporate form alone provide explanation pointed hhs concedes nonprofit corporations protected rfra dissent suggests nonprofit corporations special furthering religious autonomy often furthers individual religious freedom well post quoting corporation presiding bishop church jesus christ saints amos brennan concurring judgment principle applies equally corporations furthering religious freedom also furthers individual religious freedom cases example allowing hobby lobby conestoga mardel assert rfra claims protects religious liberty greens corporate form enough objective braunfeld entertained claims individuals attempting make profit retail merchants never even hinted objective precluded claims explained later case exercise religion involves belief profession performance abstention physical acts engaged religious reasons smith business practices compelled limited tenets religious doctrine fall comfortably within definition thus law operates make practice religious beliefs expensive context business activities imposes burden exercise religion braunfeld supra see lee recognizing compulsory participation social security system interferes amish employers free exercise rights braunfeld recognized sole proprietorship seeks make profit may assert ca hobby lobby conestoga mardel lower judges suggested rfra protect corporations purpose corporations simply make argument flies face modern corporate law american jurisdiction today either expressly implication authorizes corporations formed general corporation act lawful purpose business cox hazen treatise law corporations ed emphasis added see fletcher cyclopedia law corporations rev ed certainly true central objective corporations make money modern corporate law require corporations pursue profit expense everything else many corporations ownership approval support wide variety charitable causes uncommon corporations humanitarian altruistic objectives many examples come readily mind long owners agree corporation may take costly measures go beyond law requires corporation operates facilities countries may exceed requirements local law regarding working conditions benefits corporations may pursue worthy objectives apparent reason may religious objectives well hhs draw sharp line nonprofit corporations hhs concedes protected rfra corporations hhs leave unprotected actual picture less corporations decline organize nonprofits order maximize profit example organizations religious charitable aims might organize corporations potential advantages corporate form freedom participate lobbying legislation campaigning political candidates promote religious charitable fact recognizing inherent compatibility establishing corporation pursuing nonprofit goals increasingly adopted laws formally recognizing hybrid corporate forms half instance recognize benefit corporation entity seeks achieve benefit public profit event objectives may properly pursued companies cases governed laws incorporated pennsylvania oklahoma laws permit corporations pursue lawful purpose act including pursuit profit conformity owners religious principles cons stat corporations may incorporated subpart lawful purpose purposes okla tit west corporation whether profit profit may incorporated organized conduct promote lawful business purposes see also brief state oklahoma amicus curiae hhs principal dissent make one additional argument effort show corporation engage exercise religion within meaning rfra hhs argues rfra codify free exercise clause precedents none cases squarely held corporation rights rfra confer protection argument many flaws first nothing text rfra originally enacted suggested statutory phrase exercise religion first amendment meant tied interpretation amendment first enacted rfra defined exercise religion mean exercise religion first amendment exercise religion recognized precedents congress wants link meaning statutory provision body case law knows see antiterrorism effective death penalty act authorizing habeas relief decision contrary involved unreasonable application clearly established federal law determined second original text rfra clear enough point think amendment rfra rluipa surely dispels doubt amendment deleted prior reference first amendment see ed incorporating neither hhs principal dissent explain congress wanted tie rfra coverage tightly specific holdings cases moreover discussed amendment went providing exercise religion shall construed favor broad protection religious exercise maximum extent permitted terms chapter constitution simply possible read provisions restricting concept exercise religion practices specifically addressed decisions third one case involving rights corporation suggests anything corporations possess rights gallagher crown kosher super market massachusetts sunday closing law challenged kosher market organized corporation customers market rabbi commonwealth argued corporation lacked standing assert one member expressed agreement argument plurality opinion four justices rejected first amendment claim merits based reasoning braunfeld reserved decision question whether corporation standing raise claim see three dissenters justices douglas brennan stewart found law unconstitutional applied corporation challengers thus implicitly recognized right assert claim see brennan joined stewart dissenting mcgowan maryland douglas dissenting related cases including gallagher finally justice frankfurter opinion joined justice harlan upheld massachusetts law merits question reserve decision issue right corporation challengers heard see mcgowan quite stretch argue rfra law enacted provide broad protection religious liberty left corporations unprotected simply gallagher case issue raised majority justices find necessary decide whether kosher market corporate status barred raising claim finally results absurd rfra merely restored decisions ossified form allow plaintiff raise rfra claim unless plaintiff fell within category plaintiffs one brought claim entertained years smith example aware case entertained claim brought resident noncitizen persons also beyond rfra protective reach simply never addressed rights smith presumably recognition weakness argument hhs principal dissent fall back broader contention nation lacks tradition exempting corporations generally applicable laws contrast hhs contends statutes like title vii expressly exempt churches nonprofit religious institutions corporations see brief hhs making argument however hhs call attention fact federal statutes exempt categories entities include corporations laws otherwise require entities engage activities object grounds conscience see title vii similar laws show anything congress speaks specificity intends religious accommodation extend corporations finally hhs contends congress wanted rfra apply corporations difficult practical matter ascertain sincere beliefs corporation hhs goes far raise specter divisive polarizing proxy battles religious identity large publicly traded corporations ibm general electric brief hhs cases however involve publicly traded corporations seems unlikely sort corporate giants hhs refers often assert rfra claims hhs pointed example publicly traded corporation asserting rfra rights numerous practical restraints likely prevent occurring example idea unrelated shareholders including institutional investors set stakeholders agree run corporation religious beliefs seems improbable event occasion cases consider rfra applicability companies companies cases us closely held corporations owned controlled members single family one disputed sincerity religious hhs also provided evidence purported problem determining sincerity asserted religious belief moved congress exclude corporations rfra protection contrary scope rluipa shows congress confident ability federal courts weed insincere claims rluipa applies institutionalized persons category consists primarily prisoners time rluipa enactment propensity prisoners assert claims dubious sincerity well nevertheless decision city boerne congress enacted rluipa preserve right prisoners raise religious liberty claims congress thought federal courts job dealing insincere prisoner claims reason believe congress limited rfra reach concern seemingly less difficult task corporate cases hhs seems concede congress wanted rfra apply nonprofit corporations see reply brief reason think congress believed spotting insincere claims tougher cases involving hhs principal dissent express concern possibility disputes among owners corporations problem arises rfra unique context owners closely held corporations may sometimes disagree conduct business treatise law corporations even rfra exist owners company might well dispute relating religion example might want company stores remain open sabbath order make money others might want stores close religious reasons state corporate law provides ready means resolving conflicts example dictating corporation establish governing structure see ibid del code tit providing certificate incorporation may provide business corporation shall managed courts turn structure underlying state law resolving disputes reasons hold federal regulation restriction activities closely held corporation must comply iv rfra applies cases must next ask whether hhs contraceptive mandate substantially burden exercise religion little trouble concluding noted hahns greens sincere religious belief life begins conception therefore object religious grounds providing health insurance covers methods birth control hhs acknowledges see brief hhs may result destruction embryo requiring hahns greens companies arrange coverage hhs mandate demands engage conduct seriously violates religious beliefs hahns greens companies yield demand economic consequences severe companies continue offer group health plans cover contraceptives issue taxed per day affected individual hobby lobby bill amount million per day million per year conestoga assessment per day million per year mardel per day million per year sums surely substantial true plaintiffs avoid assessments dropping insurance coverage altogether thus forcing employees obtain health insurance one exchanges established aca least one employees qualify subsidy one exchanges course also entail substantial economic consequences companies face penalties per employee year penalties amount roughly million hobby lobby million conestoga mardel although totals high amici supporting hhs suggested penalty actually less average cost providing health insurance see brief religious organizations therefore claim companies readily eliminate substantial burden forcing employees obtain insurance government exchanges generally entertain arguments raised advanced party see parcel service mitchell bell wolfish knetsch strong reasons adhere practice cases hhs presumably compiled relevant statistics never made argument voluminous briefing oral argument knowledge numerous cases issue us litigated around country things stand even know government position might respect amici intensely empirical reason plaintiffs never opportunity respond novel claim contrary longstanding practice large employers better discarding employer insurance plans altogether even reach argument find unpersuasive initial matter entirely ignores fact hahns greens companies religious reasons providing coverage employees advent aca legally compelled provide insurance nevertheless part doubt conventional business reasons also part religious beliefs govern relations employees see app pet cert app putting aside religious dimension decision provide insurance moreover far clear net cost companies providing insurance cost dropping insurance plans paying aca penalty health insurance benefit employees value companies simply eliminated benefit forced employees purchase insurance exchanges without offering additional compensation predictable companies face competitive disadvantage retaining attracting skilled workers see app companies attempt make elimination group health plan increasing wages costly group health insurance generally less expensive comparable individual coverage amount salary increase needed fully compensate termination insurance coverage may well exceed cost companies providing insurance addition salary increase take account fact employees must pay income taxes wages value health insurance likewise employers deduct cost providing health insurance see apparently deduct amount penalty must pay insurance provided difference also must taken account given economic incentives far clear financially advantageous employer drop coverage pay sum refuse sustain challenged regulations ground never maintained government dropping insurance coverage eliminates substantial burden hhs mandate imposes doubt congress enacted rfra matter aca believed tolerable result put businesses choice violating sincerely held religious beliefs making employees lose existing healthcare plans taking position hhs mandate impose substantial burden exercise religion hhs main argument echoed principal dissent basically connection objecting parties must provide coverage four methods contraception may operate fertilization egg end find morally wrong destruction embryo simply attenuated brief hhs pp post hhs dissent note providing coverage result destruction embryo occur employee chose take advantage coverage use one four methods ibid argument dodges question rfra presents whether hhs mandate imposes substantial burden ability objecting parties conduct business accordance religious beliefs instead addresses different question federal courts business addressing whether religious belief asserted rfra case reasonable hahns greens believe providing coverage demanded hhs regulations connected destruction embryo way sufficient make immoral provide coverage belief implicates difficult important question religion moral philosophy namely circumstances wrong person perform act innocent effect enabling facilitating commission immoral act arrogating authority provide binding national answer religious philosophical question hhs principal dissent effect tell plaintiffs beliefs flawed good reason repeatedly refused take step see smith repeatedly many different contexts warned courts must presume determine plausibility religious claim hernandez commissioner presbyterian church mary elizabeth blue hull memorial presbyterian church moreover thomas review bd indiana employment security considered rejected argument nearly identical one urged hhs dissent thomas jehovah witness initially employed making sheet steel variety industrial uses later transferred job making turrets tanks objected religious grounds participating manufacture weapons lost job sought unemployment compensation ruling employee state difficulty line employee drew work found consistent religious beliefs helping manufacture steel used making weapons work found morally objectionable helping make weapons however held us say line drew unreasonable one similarly cases hahns greens companies sincerely believe providing insurance coverage demanded hhs regulations lies forbidden side line us say religious beliefs mistaken insubstantial instead narrow function context determine whether line drawn reflects honest conviction dispute hhs nevertheless compares cases decisions rejected argument use general tax revenue subsidize secular activities religious institutions violated free exercise clause see tilton richardson plurality board ed central school dist allen cases subsidies clearly contrary challengers views secular issue namely proper relations challengers never articulated religious objection subsidies put tilton unable identify coercion directed practice exercise religious beliefs plurality opinion see allen supra ppellants contended new york law way coerces individuals practice religion contrast plaintiffs assert funding specific contraceptive methods issue violates religious beliefs hhs question sincerity contraceptive mandate forces pay enormous sum money much million per year case hobby lobby insist providing insurance coverage accordance religious beliefs mandate clearly imposes substantial burden beliefs since hhs contraceptive mandate imposes substantial burden exercise religion must move decide whether hhs shown mandate furtherance compelling governmental interest least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest hhs asserts contraceptive mandate serves variety important interests many couched broad terms promoting public health gender equality brief hhs rfra however contemplates focused inquiry requires government demonstrate compelling interest test satisfied application challenged law person particular claimant whose sincere exercise religion substantially burdened quoting requires us loo beyond broadly formulated interests scrutiniz asserted harm granting specific exemptions particular religious claimants words look marginal interest enforcing contraceptive mandate cases centro supra addition asserting broadly framed interests hhs maintains mandate serves compelling interest ensuring women access contraceptives without cost sharing see brief hhs see brief hhs cases women men constitutional right obtain contraceptives see griswold connecticut hhs tells us tudies demonstrated even moderate copayments preventive services deter patients receiving services brief hhs internal quotation marks omitted objecting parties contend hhs shown mandate serves compelling government interest arguable features aca support view noted many employees covered grandfathered plans work employers fewer employees may contraceptive coverage without cost sharing hhs responds many legal requirements exceptions existence exceptions indicate principal interest served law compelling even compelling interest may outweighed circumstances another even weightier consideration cases however interest served one biggest exceptions exception grandfathered plans simply interest employers avoiding inconvenience amending existing plan grandfathered plans required comply subset affordable care act health reform provisions provide hhs described particularly significant protections fed reg contraceptive mandate expressly excluded subset ibid find unnecessary adjudicate issue assume interest guaranteeing access four challenged contraceptive methods compelling within meaning rfra proceed consider final prong rfra test whether hhs shown contraceptive mandate least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest standard exceptionally demanding see city boerne satisfied hhs shown lacks means achieving desired goal without imposing substantial burden exercise religion objecting parties cases see requiring government demonstrat application substantial burden person least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest emphasis added straightforward way government assume cost providing four contraceptives issue women unable obtain policies due employers religious objections certainly less restrictive plaintiffs religious liberty hhs shown see viable alternative hhs provided estimate average cost per employee providing access contraceptives two according fda designed primarily emergency use see birth control medicines help online http hhs provided statistics regarding number employees might affected work corporations like hobby lobby conestoga mardel hhs told us unable provide statistics seems likely however cost providing forms contraceptives issue cases contraceptives minor compared overall cost aca according one congressional budget office recent forecasts aca provisions cost federal government trillion next decade see cbo updated estimates effects insurance coverage provisions affordable care act april hhs tells us providing women access methods contraception government interest highest order hard understand hhs argument required rfra pay anything order achieve important goal hhs contends rfra permit us take option account rfra used require creation entirely new programs brief hhs see nothing rfra supports argument drawing line creation entirely new program modification existing program rfra surely allows fraught problems doubt cost may important factor analysis rfra sister statute rluipa may circumstances require government expend additional funds accommodate citizens religious beliefs cf rluipa chapter may require government incur expenses operations avoid imposing substantial burden religious hhs view rfra never require government spend even small amount reflects judgment importance religious liberty shared congress enacted law end however need rely option new program order conclude hhs regulations fail test hhs demonstrated disposal approach less restrictive requiring employers fund contraceptive methods violate religious beliefs explained hhs already established accommodation nonprofit organizations religious objections see supra nn accommodation organization opposes providing coverage particular contraceptive services see cfr cfr organization makes certification organization insurance issuer administrator must xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage group health insurance coverage provided connection group health plan rovide separate payments contraceptive services required covered without imposing requirements eligible organization group health plan plan participants beneficiaries cfr cfr decide today whether approach type complies rfra purposes religious minimum however impinge plaintiffs religious belief providing insurance coverage contraceptives issue violates religion serves hhs stated interests equally principal dissent identifies reason accommodation fail protect asserted needs women effectively contraceptive mandate accommodation plaintiffs female employees continue receive contraceptive coverage without cost sharing contraceptives continue face minimal logistical administrative obstacles post internal quotation marks omitted employers insurers responsible providing information coverage see cfr cf cfr ironically dissent approach mped women receipt benefits take steps learn sign new government funded administered health benefit post dissent effectively compel religious employers drop coverage altogether leaving employees find individual plans exchanges elsewhere indeed scarcely congress contemplated ibid hhs principal dissent argue ruling favor objecting parties cases lead flood religious objections regarding wide variety medical procedures drugs vaccinations blood transfusions hhs made effort substantiate hhs points evidence insurance plans existence prior enactment aca excluded coverage items hhs provided evidence significant number employers sought exemption religious grounds aca coverage requirements contraceptive mandate hhs apparent belief mandate violate rfra matter significantly impinges religious liberties employers lead intolerable consequences hhs view rfra permit government require employers provide coverage medical procedure allowed law jurisdiction question instance abortions assisted suicide owners many closely held corporations good conscience provide coverage thus hhs effectively exclude people full participation economic life nation rfra enacted prevent outcome event decision cases concerned solely contraceptive mandate decision understood hold mandate must necessarily fall conflicts employer religious beliefs coverage requirements immunizations may supported different interests example need combat spread infectious diseases may involve different arguments least restrictive means providing principal dissent raises possibility discrimination hiring example basis race might cloaked religious practice escape legal sanction see post decision today provides shield government compelling interest providing equal opportunity participate workforce without regard race prohibitions racial discrimination precisely tailored achieve critical goal hhs also raises first time argument applying contraceptive mandate employers sincere religious objections essential comprehensive scheme aca establishes hhs analogizes contraceptive mandate requirement pay social security taxes upheld lee despite religious objection employer cases quite different holding lee turned primarily special problems associated national system taxation noted obligation pay social security tax initially fundamentally different obligation pay income taxes based premise explained untenable allow individuals seek exemptions taxes based religious objections particular government expenditures example religious adherent believes war sin certain percentage federal budget identified devoted activities individuals similarly valid claim exempt paying percentage income tax ibid observed tax system function denominations allowed challenge tax system tax payments spent manner violates religious belief ibid see centro lee rfra case issue lee analyzed rfra framework fundamental point simply less restrictive alternative categorical requirement pay taxes enormous variety government expenditures funded tax dollars allowing taxpayers withhold portion tax obligations religious grounds lead chaos recognizing exemptions contraceptive mandate different aca create large national pool tax revenue use purchasing healthcare coverage rather individual employers like plaintiffs purchase insurance employees contrary principal dissent characterization employers contributions necessarily funnel undifferentiated funds post accommodation established hhs requires issuers mechanism segregate premium revenue collected eligible organization monies used provide payments contraceptive services cfr ii recognizing religious accommodation rfra particular coverage requirements therefore threaten viability aca comprehensive scheme way recognizing religious objections particular expenditures general tax revenues final pages principal dissent reveals fundamental objection claims plaintiffs objection rfra dissent worries forcing federal courts apply rfra host claims made litigants seeking religious exemption generally applicable laws dissent expresses desire keep courts business see post making plea dissent reiterates point made forcefully smith applying sherbert test claims open prospect constitutionally required religious exemptions civic obligations almost every conceivable kind congress enacting rfra took position compelling interest test set forth prior federal rulings workable test striking sensible balances religious liberty competing prior governmental interests wisdom congress judgment matter concern responsibility enforce rfra written standard rfra prescribes hhs contraceptive mandate unlawful contraceptive mandate applied closely held corporations violates rfra decision statutory question makes unnecessary reach first amendment claim raised conestoga hahns judgment tenth circuit affirmed judgment third circuit reversed case remanded proceedings consistent opinion ordered kennedy concurring nos et et al et et al writ certiorari appeals tenth circuit writ certiorari appeals third circuit june justice kennedy concurring seems appropriate joining opinion add remarks outset said opinion breadth sweep ascribed respectful powerful dissent dissent disagree proper interpretation religious freedom restoration act rfra agree purpose statute et seq ensure interests religious freedom protected ante post ginsburg dissenting constitutional tradition freedom means persons right believe strive believe divine creator divine law choose course free exercise essential preserving dignity striving shaped religious precepts free exercise sense implicates freedom belief see cantwell connecticut means right express beliefs establish one religious nonreligious political civic economic life larger community complex society era pervasive governmental regulation defining proper realm free exercise difficult cases plaintiffs deem necessary exercise religious beliefs within context closely held corporations claim protection rfra federal statute discussed care detail opinion notes precedents rfra imposes test ante quoting city boerne flores government must demonstrate application substantial burden person exercise religion furtherance compelling governmental interest least restrictive means furthering compelling governmental interest rfra first requirement department health human services hhs makes case mandate serves government compelling interest providing insurance coverage necessary protect health female employees coverage significantly costly male employee ante see brief hhs pp many medical conditions pregnancy contraindicated see important confirm premise opinion assumption hhs regulation issue furthers legitimate compelling interest health female employees ante government made second showing required rfra means uses regulate least restrictive way interest opinion explains record cases shows existing recognized workable framework provide coverage framework one hhs devised plaintiffs criticized specific objection considered detail courts litigation less restrictive means challenged plaintiffs cases ante means government chose imposition direct mandate employers cases ante instances government allowed contraception coverage issue provided employees nonprofit religious organizations accommodation religious objections entities see ante accommodation works requiring insurance companies cover without cost sharing contraception coverage female employees wish accommodation equally furthers government interest impinge plaintiffs religious beliefs see ante record explained government met burden showing accommodate plaintiffs similar religious objections established framework rfra inconsistent insistence agency hhs distinguishing different religious believers burdening one accommodating may treat equally offering accommodation parties plaintiffs district courts argue government pay methods found objectionable brief respondents discussing alternative address whether proper response legitimate claim freedom health care arena government create additional program ante properly resolve whether one freedom protected creating incentives additional government constraints cases understanding accommodation may made employers without imposition whole new program burden government makes clear case established difficult accommodate government interest fact mechanism already place ante american community today long rich mosaic religious faiths town greece galloway kagan dissenting slip among reasons open tolerant free person may restricted demeaned government exercising religion yet neither may exercise unduly restrict persons employees protecting interests interests law deems compelling cases means reconcile two priorities hand existing accommodation government designed identified used circumstances closely parallel presented rfra requires government use less restrictive means explains existing model designed precisely problem might well suffice distinguish instant cases many others difficult expensive accommodate governmental program countless religious claims based alleged statutory right free exercise ante reasons others put forth join opinion ginsburg dissenting nos et et al et et al writ certiorari appeals tenth circuit writ certiorari appeals third circuit june justice ginsburg justice sotomayor joins justice breyer justice kagan join part dissenting decision startling breadth holds commercial enterprises including corporations along partnerships sole proprietorships opt law saving tax laws judge incompatible sincerely held religious beliefs see ante compelling governmental interests uniform compliance law disadvantages impose others hold sway decides least less restrictive alternative alternative suggests always whenever lieu tolling enterprise claiming exemption government general public pick tab see ante pretend first amendment free exercise clause demands accommodations extreme decisions leave doubt score see infra instead holds congress religious freedom restoration act rfra et dictated extraordinary exemptions today decision endorses view rfra demands accommodation corporation religious beliefs matter impact accommodation may third parties share corporation owners religious faith cases thousands women employed hobby lobby conestoga dependents persons corporations employ persuaded congress enacted rfra serve far less radical purpose mindful havoc judgment introduce dissent ability women participate equally economic social life nation facilitated ability control reproductive lives planned parenthood southeastern casey congress acted understanding part nationwide insurance program intended comprehensive called coverage preventive care responsive women needs carrying congress direction department health human services hhs consultation public health experts promulgated regulations requiring group health plans cover forms contraception approved food drug administration fda genesis coverage enlighten resolution cases affordable care act aca initial form specified three categories preventive care health plans must cover added cost plan participant particular services recommended preventive services task force independent panel experts scheme large gap however left preventive services many women health advocates medical professionals believe critically important cong rec statement boxer correct oversight senator barbara mikulski introduced women health amendment added aca minimum coverage requirements new category preventive services specific women health women paid significantly men preventive care amendment proponents noted fact cost barriers operated block many women obtaining needed care see statement feinstein women childbearing age spend percent health care costs men statement mikulski copayments often high women avoid getting preventive screening services first place increased access contraceptive services sponsors comprehended yield important public health gains see statement durbin bill expand health insurance coverage vast majority million women reproductive age uninsured expanded access reduce unintended altered women health amendment passage aca requires new insurance plans include coverage without cost sharing additional preventive care screenings provided comprehensive guidelines supported health resources services administration hrsa unit hhs thus charged hrsa developed recommendations consultation institute medicine iom see fed reg iom convened group independent experts including specialists disease prevention women health experts prepared report evaluating efficacy number preventive services iom clinical prevention services women closing gaps hereinafter iom report consistent findings umerous health professional associations organizations iom experts determined preventive coverage include full range contraceptive methods see also making recommendation iom report expressed concerns similar voiced congressional proponents women health amendment report noted disproportionate burden women carried comprehensive health services adverse health consequences excluding contraception preventive care available employees without cost sharing see omen consistently likely men report wide range barriers receiving medical tests treatments filling prescriptions families pregnancy may contraindicated women certain medical conditions example congenital heart diseases pulmonary hypertension marfan syndrome contraceptives may used reduce risk endometrial cancer among serious medical conditions women unintended pregnancies likely experience depression anxiety children face increased odds preterm birth low birth weight line iom suggestions hrsa adopted guidelines recommending coverage approved contraceptive methods sterilization procedures patient education counseling women reproductive capacity thereafter hhs department labor department treasury promulgated regulations requiring group health plans include coverage contraceptive services recommended hrsa guidelines subject certain exceptions described infra opinion refers regulations contraceptive coverage requirement women health amendment succeeded countermove proved unavailing senate voted conscience amendment enabled employer insurance provider deny coverage based asserted religious beliefs moral convictions cong rec see mar debate vote amendment senator mikulski observed pu personal opinion employers insurers practice medicine rejecting conscience amendment congress left health care decisions including choice among contraceptive methods hands women aid health care providers ii first amendment free exercise clause claim hobby lobby might assert foreclosed decision employment dept human resources smith smith two members native american church dismissed jobs denied unemployment benefits ingested peyote essential element religious ceremony oregon law forbade consumption peyote relying prohibition rejected employees claim denial unemployment benefits violated free exercise rights first amendment offended smith held prohibiting exercise religion object governmental regulation merely incidental effect generally applicable otherwise valid provision see individual religious beliefs excuse compliance otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct state free regulate aca contraceptive coverage requirement applies generally otherwise valid trains women well exercise religion effect exercise incidental even smith control free exercise clause require exemption hobby lobby conestoga seek accommodations religious beliefs observances clarified must significantly impinge interests third exemption sought hobby lobby conestoga override significant interests corporations employees covered dependents deny legions women hold employers beliefs access contraceptive coverage aca otherwise secure see catholic charities sacramento superior cal unaware decision exempted religious objector operation neutral generally applicable law despite recognition requested exemption detrimentally affect rights third sum respect free exercise claims less free speech claims right swing arms ends man nose begins chafee freedom speech war time harv rev iii lacking tenable claim free exercise clause hobby lobby conestoga rely rfra statute instructing overnment shall substantially burden person exercise religion even burden results rule general applicability unless government shows application burden least restrictive means compelling governmental interest rfra congress adopt ed statutory rule comparable constitutional rule rejected smith gonzales centro espírita beneficente união vegetal rfra purpose specific written statute act crafted restore compelling interest test set forth sherbert verner wisconsin yoder guarantee application cases free exercise religion substantially burdened see also compelling interest test set forth prior federal rulings workable test striking sensible balances religious liberty competing prior governmental interests ante agreeing compelling interest test workable strike sensible balances legislative history correspondingly emphatic rfra aim see hereinafter senate report rfra purpose overturn decision smith unsettle areas law cong rec statement kennedy rfra designed restore compelling interest test deciding free exercise line restorative purpose congress expected courts considering rfra claims look free exercise cases decided prior smith guidance senate report see also pp hereinafter house report short act reinstates law prior smith without creat ing new rights religious practice potential litigant cong rec statement kennedy given act moderate purpose hardly surprising rfra enactment provoked little controversy see brief senator murray et al amici curiae hereinafter senators brief rfra approved vote senate voice vote house representatives despite authoritative indications sees rfra bold initiative departing rather restoring jurisprudence see ante support conception rfra measure detached decisions one sets new course points first religious land use institutionalized persons act rluipa et altered rfra definition term exercise religion rfra originally enacted defined term mean exercise religion first amendment constitution see ante amended rluipa rfra definition includes exercise religion whether compelled central system religious belief ed definitional change according reflects obvious effort effect complete separation first amendment case law ante reading plausible rluipa alteration clarifies courts question centrality particular religious exercise amendment way suggests congress meant expand class entities qualified mount religious accommodation claims relieve courts obligation inquire whether government action substantially burdens religious exercise see rasul myers cadc brown concurring doubt rluipa drafters changing definition religion wanted broaden scope kinds practices protected rfra increase universe individuals protected rfra see also gilardi dept health human cadc rfra amended provides us helpful definition religion henderson kennedy cadc rluipa amendments alter rfra basic prohibition overnment shall substantially burden person exercise religion next highlights rfra requirement government action substantially burdens person religious observance must demonstrate chose least restrictive means furthering compelling interest imposing test suggests rfra went beyond required decisions ante citing city boerne flores see also ante rfra statements purpose legislative history make clear congress intended restore scrap alter balancing test applied see supra see also senate report rfra compelling interest test generally construed stringently leniently prior smith house report congress passed rfra correctly read case law including within compelling interest test least restrictive means requirement see senate report substantial burden placed upon free exercise religion ruled sherbert government must demonstrate least restrictive means achieve compelling governmental view test included least restrictive means requirement aired testimony senate judiciary committee experts religious freedom see hearing senate committee judiciary statement douglas laycock decision city boerne true least restrictive means requirement used jurisprudence rfra purported codify see ante indicated however statement accurately convey jurisprudence see sherbert plainly incumbent upon government demonstrate alternative forms regulation combat problem without infringing first amendment rights thomas review bd indiana employment security state may justify inroad religious liberty showing least restrictive means achieving compelling state see also berg new attacks religious freedom legislation wrong cardozo rev boerne erroneously said least restrictive means test used jurisprudence rfra restorative purpose mind turn act application instant lawsuits task view positions taken requires consideration several questions potentially dispositive hobby lobby conestoga claims corporations rank among person exercise religion assuming contraceptive coverage requirement substantially burden religious exercise requirement furtherance compelling government interest last requirement represent least restrictive means furthering interest misguided errant premise rfra moved beyond case law falters step analysis rfra compelling interest test noted see supra applies government actions substantially burden person exercise religion emphasis added reference submits incorporates definition person found dictionary act extends corporations companies associations firms partnerships societies joint stock companies well individuals see ante dictionary act definition however controls context indicat otherwise context indicate rfra speaks person exercise religion emphasis added see also whether corporation qualifies person capable exercising religion inquiry one answer without reference full body caselaw gilardi case law support notion free exercise rights pertain corporations litigation decision recognized corporation qualification religious exemption generally applicable law whether free exercise clause absence precedent one expect exercise religion characteristic natural persons artificial legal entities chief justice marshall observed nearly two centuries ago corporation artificial invisible intangible existing contemplation law trustees dartmouth college woodward wheat corporations justice stevens recently reminded consciences beliefs feelings thoughts desires citizens federal election opinion concurring part dissenting part first amendment free exercise protections indeed recognized shelter churches nonprofit many individuals religious activity derives meaning large measure participation larger religious community furtherance autonomy religious organizations often furthers individual religious freedom well corporation presiding bishop church jesus christ saints amos brennan concurring judgment special solicitude rights religious organizations evangelical lutheran church school eeoc slip however solicitude traditional commercial indeed today religious exemptions never extended entity operating commercial world amos reason hardly obscure religious organizations exist foster interests persons subscribing religious faith corporations workers sustain operations corporations commonly drawn one religious community indeed law criterion restrict work force corporations see cf trans world airlines hardison title vii requires reasonable accommodation employee religious exercise accommodation must come expense employees distinction community made believers religion one embracing persons diverse beliefs clear constantly escapes one wonder shuts key difference sight reading rfra require extension exemptions corporations surely grounded precedent congress sought preserve congress intended rfra initiate change huge clarion statement effect likely made legislation see whitman american trucking congress hide elephants mouseholes text rfra makes statement legislative history much mention corporations see hobby lobby stores sebelius briscoe concurring part dissenting part legislative record lacks suggestion congress foresaw let alone intended rfra cover corporations see also senators brief none cases cited house senate judiciary committee reports accompanying rfra mentioned floor speeches recognized free exercise rights corporations notes corporations may support charitable causes use funds religious ends therefore questions distinction corporations religious nonprofit organizations see ante see also ante kennedy concurring criticizing government distinguishing different religious believers burdening one accommodating may treat equally offering accommodation forgets religious organizations exist serve community believers corporations fit bill moreover history side recognition discrete characters ecclesiastical lay corporations dates back blackstone see blackstone commentaries laws england reiterated centuries enactment internal revenue code see terrett taylor cranch describing religious corporations trustees dartmouth college discussing eleemosynary corporations including created promotion religion reiterate corporations different religious use labor make profit rather perpetuate religious value shared community believers gilardi edwards concurring part dissenting part emphasis deleted citing braunfeld brown questions sole proprietorship seeks make profit may assert claim hobby lobby conestoga ca ante omitted see also ante even accepting arguendo premise unincorporated business enterprises may gain religious accommodations free exercise clause conclusion unsound sole proprietorship business owner one incorporating business however individual separates entity escapes personal responsibility entity obligations one might ask separation hold serves interest control corporation event braunfeld hardly impressive authority entitlement hobby lobby conestoga seek free exercise claim asserted promptly rejected merits determination rfra extends corporations bound untoward effects although attempts cabin language closely held corporations logic extends corporations size public little doubt rfra claims proliferate expansive notion corporate personhood combined errors construing rfra invites entities seek exemptions regulations deem offensive faith even hobby lobby conestoga deemed rfra person gain exemption must demonstrate contraceptive coverage requirement substantially burden exercise religion congress doubt meant modifier substantially carry weight original draft rfra word burden appeared unmodified word substantially inserted pursuant clarifying amendment offered senators kennedy hatch see cong rec proposing amendment senator kennedy stated rfra accord case law require government justify every action effect religious exercise ibid barely pauses inquire whether burden imposed contraceptive coverage requirement substantial instead rests greens hahns belie providing coverage demanded hhs regulations connected destruction embryo way sufficient make immoral provide coverage ante agree green hahn families religious convictions regarding contraception sincerely held see thomas courts question individual dr aws line defining practices run afoul religious beliefs see also beliefs however deeply held suffice sustain rfra claim rfra properly understood distinguishes factual allegations plaintiffs beliefs sincere religious nature must accept true legal conclusion plaintiffs religious exercise substantially burdened inquiry must undertake kaemmerling lappin cadc distinction facet jurisprudence rfra incorporates bowen roy instructive rejected free exercise challenge government use native american child social security number purposes administering benefit programs without questioning sincerity father religious belief use daughter social security number may harm spirit concluded government internal uses number place restriction father may believe may recognizing father religious views may accept position challenged uses concerned government internal affairs explained adjudication constitutional claim constitution rather individual religion must supply frame reference see also hernandez commissioner distinguishing one hand question centrality particular beliefs practices faith validity particular litigants interpretations creeds whether alleged burden imposed challenged government action substantial one inattentive guidance today decision elides entirely distinction sincerity challenger religious belief substantiality burden placed challenger undertaking inquiry forgoes conclude connection families religious objections contraceptive coverage requirement attenuated rank substantial requirement carries command hobby lobby conestoga purchase provide contraceptives find objectionable instead calls companies covered requirement direct money undifferentiated funds finance wide variety benefits comprehensive health plans plans order comply aca see supra must offer contraceptive coverage without cost sharing must cover array preventive services importantly decisions whether claim benefits plans made hobby lobby conestoga covered employees dependents consultation health care providers employee hobby lobby conestoga share religious beliefs greens hahns course compulsion use contraceptives question individual decision employee physician use contraception treat infection hip replaced meaningful sense employer decision action grote sebelius rovner dissenting doubtful congress specified burdens must substantia mind linkage thus interrupted independent decisionmakers woman health counselor standing challenged government action religious exercise claimed infringed decision use contraceptives made woman covered hobby lobby conestoga plan propelled government woman autonomous choice informed physician consults even one conclude hobby lobby conestoga meet substantial burden requirement government shown contraceptive coverage aca provides furthers compelling interests public health women well interests concrete specific demonstrated wealth empirical evidence recapitulate mandated contraception coverage enables women avoid health problems unintended pregnancies may visit children see iom report coverage helps safeguard health women pregnancy may hazardous even life threatening see brief american college obstetricians gynecologists et al amici curiae mandate secures benefits wholly unrelated pregnancy preventing certain cancers menstrual disorders pelvic pain brief ovarian cancer national alliance et al amici curiae fed reg iom report hobby lobby conestoga resist coverage contraceptives lessen compelling interests notably corporations exclude intrauterine devices iuds devices significantly effective significantly expensive contraceptive methods see moreover reasoning appears permit commercial enterprises like hobby lobby conestoga exclude group health plans forms contraceptives see tr oral arg counsel hobby lobby acknowledged argument apply well employer said internal quotation marks added perhaps gravity interests stake led assume purposes rfra analysis compelling interest criterion met cases see ante bears note regard cost iud nearly equivalent month pay workers earning minimum wage brief guttmacher institute et al amici curiae almost women change contraceptive method costs factor frost darroch factors associated contraceptive choice inconsistent method use perspectives sexual reproductive health women request iud actually one inserted finding expensive gariepy simon patel creinin schwarz impact expense iud utilization among women private insurance contraception see also eisenberg supra recent study found women face iud costs excess less likely obtain iud women pay less postlethwaite trussell zoolakis shabear petitti comparison contraceptive procurement change contraception one health system eliminated patient cost sharing iuds use form contraception doubled stepping back assumption compelling interests support contraceptive coverage requirement notes small employers grandfathered plans subject requirement compelling interest contraceptive coverage suggests congress created exclusions see ante federal statutes often include exemptions small employers provisions never held undermine interests served statutes see family medical leave act applicable employers employees age discrimination employment act originally exempting employers fewer employees stat statute governs employers employees americans disabilities act applicable employers employees title vii originally exempting employers fewer employees see arbaugh statute governs employers employees aca grandfathering provision allows period compliance number act requirements contraceptive coverage preventive services provisions specified changes made grandfathered status ceases see cfr hobby lobby situation illustrative time litigation commenced hobby lobby grandfathered status asked district hobby lobby counsel explained grandfathering requirements mean ca make whole menu changes plan involve things like amount amount deductibles sort thing app pp counsel acknowledged economic realities plan shift time mean insurance plans everyone knows shif time percentage employees grandfathered plans steadily declining dropped kaiser family foundation health research educ trust employer benefits annual survey short far ranking categorical exemption grandfathering provision temporary intended means gradually transitioning employers mandatory coverage gilardi edwards concurring part dissenting part ultimately acknowledges critical point rfra application must take adequate account burdens requested accommodation may impose nonbeneficiaries ante quoting cutter wilkinson emphasis added tradition prior decision rfra allows exemption accommodation harmful others persons contraceptive coverage requirement designed protect cf supra prince massachusetts jackson dissenting limitations necessity bound religious freedom begin operate whenever activities begin affect collide liberties others assuming existence compelling government interests holds contraceptive coverage requirement fails satisfy rfra least restrictive means test government shown less restrictive equally effective means satisfy challengers religious objections providing insurance coverage certain contraceptives believe cause abortions carry objective aca contraceptive coverage requirement ensure women employees receive cost preventive care needed safeguard health well least restrictive means require employees relinquish benefits accorded federal law order ensure commercial employers adhere unreservedly religious tenets see supra let government pay rather employees share employer faith suggests straightforward alternative asserts government assume cost providing contraceptives women unable obtain policies due employers religious objections ante aca however requires coverage preventive services existing system health insurance employees face minimal logistical administrative obstacles fed reg impeding women receipt benefits requiring take steps learn sign new government funded administered health benefit scarcely congress contemplated ibid moreover title public health service act et nation dedicated source federal funding safety net family planning services brief national health law program et al amici curiae safety net programs like title designed absorb unmet needs insured individuals note congress declined write law preferential treatment hobby lobby conestoga describe less restrictive alternative see supra stopping point let government pay alternative suppose employer sincerely held religious belief offended health coverage vaccines paying minimum wage see tony susan alamo foundation secretary labor according women equal pay substantially similar work see dole shenandoah baptist church rank less restrictive alternative require government provide money benefit employer objection easily answer question proposes something else extension commercial enterprises accommodation already afforded nonprofit organizations see ante minimum according approach impinge hobby lobby conestoga religious belief ante already discussed special solicitude generally accorded nonprofit organizations exist serve community believers solicitude never accorded commercial enterprises comprising employees diverse faiths see supra ultimately hedges proposal align enterprises nonprofit organizations decide today whether approach opinion advances complies rfra purposes religious claims ante counsel hobby lobby similarly noncommittal asked oral argument whether alternative counsel responded offered accommodation decide kind objection make tr oral arg conestoga suggests employees acquire pay contraceptives corporation objects tax credit qualify less restrictive alternative see brief petitioners tax credit course one variety let government pay addition departing existing system health insurance conestoga alternative require woman reach pocket first instance nothing woman poor aided tax credit sum view congress sought accomplish comprehensive preventive care women furnished health plans none proffered alternatives satisfactorily serve compelling interests congress responded iv among pathmarking decisions rfra preserved lee lee sole proprietor engaged farming carpentry member old order amish sincerely believed withholding social security taxes employees paying employer share taxes violate amish faith held although obligations imposed social security system conflicted lee religious beliefs burden unconstitutional see also recognizing important governmental interest providing nationwide comprehensive insurance system variety benefits available participants costs shared employers employees government urges lee control challenges brought hobby lobby conestoga see brief respondents contrast today dismisses lee tax case see ante indeed tax case lee homed difficulty attempting accommodate religious beliefs area taxation lee made two key points one confine tax cases followers particular sect enter commercial activity matter choice observed limits accept conduct matter conscience faith superimposed statutory schemes binding others activity statutory scheme comprehensive health coverage involved cases surely binding others engaged trade business corporate challengers hobby lobby conestoga recognized lee allowing exemption commercial employer operat impose employer religious faith employees doubt greens hahns share beliefs may decline acquire contraceptives question choice may imposed employees hold beliefs working hobby lobby conestoga words deprive employees preventive care available workers shop next least absence directions legislature administration decisions order made congress regulatory authority hobby lobby conestoga surely stand alone commercial enterprises seeking exemptions generally applicable laws basis religious beliefs see newman piggie park enterprises supp sc owner restaurant chain refused serve black patrons based religious beliefs opposing racial integration aff relevant part rev part grounds aff modified grounds minnesota ex rel mcclure christians owned closely held health clubs believed bible proscribed hiring retaining individua living married person opposite sex young single woman working without father consent married woman working without husband consent person antagonistic bible including fornicators homosexuals internal quotation marks omitted appeal dismissed elane photography llc willock photography business owned husband wife refused photograph lesbian couple commitment ceremony based religious beliefs company owners cert denied rfra require exemptions cases ilk divine religious beliefs worthy accommodation disarmed making judgment given recognition courts must presume determine plausibility religious claim ante exemption holds rfra demands employers religiously grounded objections use certain contraceptives extend employers religiously grounded objections blood transfusions jehovah witnesses antidepressants scientologists medications derived pigs including anesthesia intravenous fluids pills coated gelatin certain muslims jews hindus vaccinations christian scientists among others according counsel hobby lobby one cases evaluated apply ing compelling restrictive alternative test tr oral arg much help lower courts bound today decision however sees nothing worry today cases concludes concerned solely contraceptive mandate decision understood hold mandate must necessarily fall conflicts employer religious beliefs coverage requirements immunizations may supported different interests example need combat spread infectious diseases may involve different arguments least restrictive means providing ante assumed rfra purposes interest women health well compelling come means adequate serve interest one motivating congress adopt women health amendment overriding interest believe keeping courts business evaluating relative merits differing religious claims lee stevens concurring judgment sincerity asserted religious belief held indeed approving religious claims deeming others unworthy accommodation perceived favoring one religion another risk establishment clause designed preclude ibid fear ventured minefield cf spencer world vision concurring immoderate reading rfra confine religious exemptions act organizations formed religious purpose engage primarily carrying religious purpose engaged substantially exchange goods services money beyond nominal amounts see kleinfeld concurring reasons stated reverse judgment appeals tenth circuit affirm judgment appeals third circuit breyer kagan dissenting nos et et al et et al writ certiorari appeals tenth circuit writ certiorari appeals third circuit june justice breyer justice kagan dissenting agree justice ginsburg plaintiffs challenge contraceptive coverage requirement fails merits need decide whether either corporations owners may bring claims religious freedom restoration act accordingly join part justice ginsburg dissenting opinion footnotes together conestoga wood specialties et al burwell secretary health human services et certiorari appeals third circuit footnotes see also post exemption sought hobby lobby conestoga deny employees access contraceptive coverage aca otherwise secure act defines government include department agency city boerne flores wrote rfra least restrictive means requirement used jurisprudence rfra purported codify understanding cases rfra merely restore balancing test used sherbert line cases provided even broader protection religious liberty available decisions see hankins lyght guam guerrero principal dissent appears contend rule construction apply defining exercise religion rluipa case rfra case see post argument plainly wrong rule construction phrase exercise religion appears rluipa must interpreted broadly rfra phrase used rfra means religious exercis defined rluipa necessarily follows exercise religion rfra must given broad meaning applies rluipa use brief hhs refer brief petitioners brief respondents federal parties departments hhs treasury labor secretaries departments online http owners companies involved cases others believe life begins conception regard four methods causing abortions federal regulations define pregnancy beginning implantation see fed reg cfr classify case religious organizations entitled accommodation administrator organization must provide arrange payments contraceptive services organization employees without imposing requirements eligible organization insurance plan employee beneficiaries fed reg codified cfr regulations establish mechanism administrators compensated expenses obtaining reduction fee paid insurers participate federally facilitated exchanges see fed reg codified cfr hhs believes fee reductions materially affect funding exchanges payments contraceptive services represent small portion total exchange user fees fed reg separate challenge framework religious nonprofit organizations recently ordered pending appeal eligible organizations permitted opt contraceptive mandate providing written notification objections secretary hhs rather insurance issuers administrators see little sisters poor sebelius government predicts number decline time total number americans working employers contraceptive mandate apply still substantial legal requirement grandfathered plans ever phased online http www whitehouse gov files documents health mennonite church usa statement abortion online http hahns conestoga also claimed contraceptive mandate violates fifth amendment administrative procedure act claims us see webmd health news new pill ella wins fda approval online http greens operate hobby lobby mardel management trust member family serves trustee family provided trust also governed according religious principles ibid also raised claim administrative procedure act given rfra ruling declined address plaintiffs claim question whether greens bring rfra claims individual owners hobby lobby mardel four judges however concluded greens see gorsuch concurring matheson concurring part dissenting part three judges granted plaintiffs preliminary injunction see gorsuch concurring discussed supra city boerne stated rfra imposing test went beyond required decisions although author principal dissent joined opinion city boerne claims statement incorrect post present purposes unnecessary adjudicate dispute even rfra simply restored status quo ante reason believe hhs dissent seem suggest law meant limited situations fall squarely within holdings cases see infra cf brief federal petitioners centro ii stating organizational respondent new mexico corporation brief federal respondent stating petitioner ecclesiastical corporation government concede term persons rfra includes nonprofit corporations goes appears concede term might also encompass artificial entities namely general partnerships unincorporated associations see brief hhs although principal dissent seems think justice brennan statement amos provides ground holding corporations may assert claims justice brennan view see gallagher crown kosher super market dissenting opinion infra revealing principal dissent even bring acknowledge braunfeld correct entertaining merchants claims see post dismissing relevance braunfeld part free exercise claim asserted promptly rejected merits see see created make money exercise religion grote sebelius rovner dissenting far appears mission grote industries like secular business make money commercial sphere autocam sebelius congress intend include corporations primarily organized secular purposes rfra see also briscoe dissenting specific purpose corporation created matters greatly categorized treated law undisputed hobby lobby mardel corporations focused selling merchandise consumers principal dissent makes similar point stating corporations different religious nonprofits use labor make profit rather perpetuate religious values shared community believers post internal quotation marks omitted first half statement tautology corporations indeed differ nonprofits insofar seek make profit owners second part factually untrue activities corporations involved cases show corporations seek perpetuate religious values shared cases owners conestoga vision values statement declares company dedicated operating manner reflects christian heritage highest ethical moral principles business app similarly hobby lobby statement purpose proclaims company committed honoring lord operating manner consistent biblical principles app dissent also believes history side even blackstone recognized distinction ecclesiastical lay corporations post blackstone illustrates however dating back sharp divide among corporations capacity exercise religion blackstone recognized even termed lay corporations might serve promotion piety blackstone commentaries law england whatever may case time blackstone modern corporate law law three companies incorporated allows corporations perpetuat religious values see sanders joint ventures involving organizations ed describing advance charitable goals operating corporation able invest endeavors lobby policies support philanthropic goals tap google innovative technology workforce internal quotation marks alterations omitted cf cfr see benefit corp information center online http code ann lexis benefit corporation shall one purposes purpose creating general public benefit may identify one specific public benefits purpose benefit corporation create purpose addition purpose engaging lawful business public benefit means benefit serves one public welfare religious charitable scientific literary educational purposes purpose benefit beyond strict interest shareholders benefit corporation code ann cum supp cum supp similar see brief appellants gallagher pp arguing corporation belief liberty standing assert free exercise religion impaired principal dissent points exemption codified enacted three years rfra passage post dissent takes mean rfra fact ope statutory schemes challenges corporations need exemption sort ibid argument fails recognize protection provided differs significantly protection provided rfra section flatly prohibits discrimination covered healthcare facility refusing engage certain activities related abortion covered healthcare facility challenged discrimination rfra contrast discrimination unlawful concluded among things less restrictive means achieving compelling government interest addition dissent argument proves much section applies evenly health care entity whether religious nonprofit entity entity dispute rfra protects religious nonprofit corporations redundant applied corporations equally redundant applied nonprofits qualify rfra protection asserted belief must sincere corporation pretextual assertion religious belief order obtain exemption financial reasons fail quaintance see ochs thalacker green white supp ed mo abate walton wl winters state iowa principal dissent attaches significance fact senate voted amendment enabled employer insurance provider deny coverage based asserted religious beliefs moral convictions post dissent evidently glean vote intent senate prohibit corporate employers refusing offer contraceptive coverage religious reasons regardless whether contraceptive mandate pass muster rfra standards plausible inference failed amendment even likely one thing text amendment written broadly allow employer deny health service american virtually reason religious objections cong rec mar emphasis added moreover amendment authorized blanket exemption religious moral objectors subjected objections judicial scrutiny called rfra must consider burden requirement religious adherents also government interest narrowly tailored requirement thus perfectly reasonable believe amendment voted extended broadly protections rfra event even rejected amendment bill relevant contexts surely relevant federal statutory law adopted november subject rfra unless law explicitly excludes application reference rfra emphasis added plausible find explicit reference meager legislative history dissent relies indeed one hhs stated reasons establishing religious accommodation encourag eligible organizations continue offer health coverage fed reg emphasis added attempting compensate dropped insurance raising wages also present administrative difficulties order provide full compensation employees companies calculate value employees convenience retaining coverage thus spared task attempting find sign comparable plan exchange companies employees may qualify subsidies exchange nearly impossible calculate salary increase accurately restore status quo ante employees argument easy square position taken hhs providing exemptions contraceptive mandate religious employers churches religious objections hahns greens companies connection religious employers required exempted provide insurance coverage particular contraceptives ultimate event find morally wrong destruction embryo exactly nevertheless discussed hhs labor treasury departments authorized exemption contraceptive mandate group health plans certain religious employers later expanded exemption include certain nonprofit organizations religious objections contraceptive coverage fed reg done government made clear objective protec religious objectors contract arrange pay refer coverage ibid exemptions hard understand plaintiffs objections substantial see oderberg ethics wrongdoing modern moral philosophy ed higgins man man science art ethics general principles governing cooperation wrongdoing physical activity omission person assists evil act another principal agent present troublesome difficulties application davis moral pastoral theology cooperation occurs helps accomplish external act act sinful without approving principal dissent makes effort reconcile view requirement decision thomas online http related argument hhs appears maintain plaintiff prevail rfra claim seeks exemption legal obligation requiring plaintiff confer benefits third parties nothing text rfra basic purposes supports giving government entirely free hand impose burdens religious exercise long burdens confer benefit individuals certainly true applying rfra courts must take adequate account burdens requested accommodation may impose nonbeneficiaries cutter wilkinson applying rluipa consideration often inform analysis government compelling interest availability less restrictive means advancing interest reasonably maintained burden religious exercise matter onerous matter readily government interest achieved alternative means permissible rfra long relevant legal obligation requires religious adherent confer benefit third parties otherwise example government decide supermarkets must sell alcohol convenience customers thereby exclude muslims religious objections owning supermarkets decide restaurants must remain open saturdays give employees opportunity earn tips thereby exclude jews religious objections owning restaurants framing government regulation benefiting third party government turn regulations entitlements nobody object religious grounds rendering rfra meaningless event decision cases need result detrimental effect third party explain see infra government readily arrange methods providing contraceptives without cost sharing employees unable obtain plans due employers religious objections hhs concluded insurers insure eligible employers opting contraceptive mandate required pay contraceptive coverage accommodation experience increase costs costs providing contraceptive coverage balanced cost savings lower costs improvements women health fed reg respect plans regulations establish mechanism eligible employers administrators obtain compensating reduction fee paid insurers participate federally facilitated exchanges hhs believes system material effect funding exchanges payments contraceptive services represent small portion total federally facilitated exchange user fees see cfr see supra principal dissent faults us noncommital refusing decide case us post less restrictive approach describe accommodates religious beliefs asserted cases question permitted address principal dissent view government fair opportunity address accommodation post government apparently believes provides exception general rule secular reasons certain religious reasons must explain extending comparable exception specific plaintiff religious reasons undermine compelling interests brief amicus curiae holt hobbs pending cf federal program distribution pediatric vaccines uninsured underinsured children hhs highlights certain statements opinion lee regards supporting position cases particular hhs notes statement hen followers particular sect enter commercial activity matter choice limits accept conduct matter conscience faith superimposed statutory schemes binding others activity lee free exercise rfra case statement hhs points taken face value squarely inconsistent plain meaning rfra rfra followers particular religion choose enter commercial activity government free hand imposing obligations substantially burden exercise religion rather government impose burden strict rfra test met footnotes insists held none things another less restrictive alternative hand extending existing accommodation currently limited religious nonprofit organizations encompass commercial enterprises see ante accommodation extended asserts women still entitled food drug administration contraceptives without cost sharing ante end however sure stark contrast initial emphasis accommodation ultimately declines decide whether highlighted accommodation even lawful see ante decide today whether approach type complies rfra see group health plans must provide coverage without cost sharing certain items services recommended preventive services task force immunizations recommended advisory committee centers disease control prevention respect infants children adolescents preventive care screenings provided comprehensive guidelines supported health resources services administration iom arm national academy sciences organization congress established explicit purpose furnishing advice government public citizen department justice internal quotation marks omitted hrsa hhs women preventive services guidelines available http internet materials visited june available clerk case file reprinted app brief petitioners pp see also fed reg cfr iv hhs cfr iv labor cfr iv treasury separating moral convictions religious beliefs questionable legitimacy see welsh harlan concurring result explains see ante cases arise two separate lawsuits one filed hobby lobby affiliated business mardel family operates businesses greens filed conestoga family owns controls business hahns unless otherwise specified opinion refers respective groups plaintiffs hobby lobby conestoga see wisconsin yoder case course one harm physical mental health child public safety peace order welfare demonstrated may properly inferred estate thornton caldor invalidating state statute requiring employers accommodate employee sabbath observance statute failed take account burden accommodation impose employer employees notably construing religious land use institutionalized persons act rluipa et cautioned adequate account must taken burdens requested accommodation may impose nonbeneficiaries cutter wilkinson see accommodation must measured override significant interests balanced approach order free exercise clause stake statute designed promote accommodation religious beliefs practices sherbert yoder requir ed government justify substantial burden religiously motivated conduct compelling state interest means narrowly tailored achieve interest employment dept human resources smith concurring judgment rluipa notes includes provision directing chapter rluipa shall construed favor broad protection religious exercise maximum extent permitted terms act constitution see ante rfra incorporates rluipa definition exercise religion rluipa contains omnibus rule construction governing statute entirety points joined majority opinion city boerne question statement least restrictive means used ante concerning observation remind colleagues justice jackson sage comment see reason consciously wrong today unconsciously wrong yesterday massachusetts dissenting opinion earlier explained see supra rluipa amendment definition exercise religion bear weight places moreover passing strange attribute rluipa purpose cover entities religious assembl ies institution cf ante law applies regulation permit commercial enterprises challenge zoning regulations rluipa dramatically expand statute reach deeply intrude local prerogatives contrary congress intent brief national league cities et al amici curiae regards gallagher crown kosher super market suggest ing corporations possess rights ante see also ante suggestion barely true one five challengers sunday closing law assailed gallagher corporation owned four orthodox jews challengers human individuals artificial entities need determine whether corporation institute litigation accordingly plurality stated pretermit question whether appellees ha standing braunfeld brown upheld similar closing law fatal claim merits see evangelical lutheran church school eeoc gonzales centro espírita beneficente união vegetal church lukumi babalu aye hialeah jimmy swaggart ministries board equalization typically congress accorded organizations religious character exemptions statutes general application title vii exemption prohibition employment discrimination based religion religious corporation association educational institution society respect employment individuals particular religion perform work connected carrying activities parallel exemption americans disabilities act scarcely maintained rfra enlarges exemptions allow hobby lobby conestoga hire persons share religious beliefs greens hahns suggest otherwise cf ante identify two statutory exemptions reads cover corporations infers congress speaks specificity intends religious accommodation extend corporations ante inference unwarranted exemptions cites cover certain medical personnel object performing assisting abortions cf ante protection provided differs significantly protection provided rfra notably assert exemptions fact afforded corporations see health care entity covered exemption term defined include individual physician postgraduate physician training program participant program training health professions tozzi whither free exercise employment division smith rebirth state constitutional free exercise clause jurisprudence catholic legal studies catholic physicians necessarily hospitals may able invoke cf sess introduced abortion act amend definition health care entity include hospital health insurance plan health care facilities provisions revealing way detracts one main arguments show congress content rest dictionary act wishes ensure particular entities among eligible religious accommodation moreover exemption codified enacted three years rfra passage see omnibus consolidated rescissions appropriations act stat believes rfra opened statutory schemes challenges corporations need exemption sort say category plaintiffs resident aliens may bring rfra claims expressly addressed rights smith ante continuing example resident aliens unlike corporations individuals plainly count persons sheltered first amendment see citing bridges wixon fortiori rfra part ways justice kennedy context relevant sees employers exercise religious beliefs within context closely held corporations ante concurring opinion see also ante opinion similarly concentrating religious faith employers without reference different beliefs liberty interests employees see relevant context employers asserted right exercise religion within nationwide program designed protect health hazards employees subscribe employers religious beliefs according government concedes nonprofit corporation protected rfra ante see also ante accurate description government position encompasses churches religious institutions religious brief respondents emphasis added see also reply brief rfra incorporates longstanding distinction religious organizations sometimes accorded accommodations generally applicable laws recognition accepted religious character corporations organized business commercial even begin explain one might go ascertaining religious scruples corporation shares sold public need speculate says seems unlikely large corporations often assert rfra claims ante perhaps hobby lobby case demonstrates claims indeed pursued large corporations employing thousands persons different faiths whose ownership diffuse closely held synonymous small hobby lobby hardly enterprise sizable scale family owned closely held example candy giant mars takes billion revenues employees closely held cargill takes billion revenues employs persons see forbes america largest private companies available http offer instruction resolve disputes may crop among corporate owners religious values accommodations satisfied tate corporate law provides ready means resolving conflicts ante authorities cited support proposition hardly helpful see del code tit certificates incorporation may specify business managed cox hazen treatise law corporations ed section entitled selecting state incorporation observing espite frequency dissension deadlock close corporations neither legislatures courts provided satisfactory solutions even dispute settlement mechanism place arbiter intracorporate controversy resolve disagreement given instruction courts business addressing whether asserted religious belief substantial ante dismisses argument advanced amici tax charged certain employers fail provide health insurance less average cost offering health insurance noting government provided statistics support argument see ante overlooks however government obligation prove asserted burden insubstantial instead incumbent upon plaintiffs demonstrate support rfra claim substantiality alleged burden levels criticism wrongheaded way dissent tell plaintiffs beliefs flawed ante right wrong domain judgment member civil authorized equipped make must decide plausibility religious claim ante internal quotation marks omitted whether accommodating claim risks depriving others rights accorded laws see supra infra iuds among reliable forms contraception generally cost women expenses office visit insertion procedure taken account see eisenberg mcnicholas peipert cost barrier reversible contraceptive larc use adolescents adolescent health see also winner et effectiveness reversible contraception new eng medicine although opinion makes assumption grudgingly see ante one member majority recognizes without reservation contraceptive coverage mandate serves government compelling interest providing insurance coverage necessary protect health female employees ante opinion kennedy hobby lobby amicus national religious broadcasters similarly iven nature employers needs meet changing economic staffing circumstances adjust insurance coverage accordingly actual benefit exclusion de minimis transitory best brief national religious broadcasters amicus curiae made clear cutter government license grant exemptions generally applicable laws constrained establishment clause cosmopolitan nation made people almost every conceivable religious preference braunfeld rich mosaic religious faiths town greece galloway kagan dissenting slip consequently one person right free exercise must kept harmony rights fellow citizens religious practices must yield common good lee cf ashcroft american civil liberties union context first amendment speech clause challenge speech restriction courts must determine whether challenged regulation least restrictive means among available effective alternatives emphasis added brief hobby lobby conestoga barely addressed extension solution bracket commercial enterprises nonprofit organizations religious accommodations purposes hesitation understandable challenges adequacy accommodation accorded religious nonprofit organizations currently sub judice see little sisters poor home aged sebelius supp wl injunction pending appeal granted another point today decision refuses consider argument neither raised advanced party giving hobby lobby conestoga opportunity respond novel claim ante yet content decide case case ground hhs make accommodation never suggested parties presentations rfra sensibly read requir government refute every conceivable alternative regulation wilgus especially alternative seizes pressed challenger sole proprietor lee subject personal liability violating law general application opposed claim exemption even thinner conducted business corporation thus avoiding personal liability congress amended social security act response lee amended statute permits amish sole proprietors partnerships corporations obtain exemption obligation pay social security taxes employees likewise seek exemption agree give social security benefits see thus employers sincere religious beliefs right exemption deprive employees social security benefits without employee consent exemption analogous one hobby lobby conestoga seek cf tony susan alamo foundation secretary labor disallowing exemption undoubtedly give commercial enterprise seeking exemption similar organizations advantage competitors religious objections immunization programs hypothetical see phillips new york supp wl edny june dismissing free exercise challenges new york vaccination practices liberty counsel compulsory vaccinations threaten religious freedom available http