Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided June 27, 2013No. 12-6294Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMatheson, Circuit Judge

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs in this case are two corporations — Hobby Lobby and Mardel — and the owners and managers of those corporations — the Greens. Asserting claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) and the Free Exercise Clause, these corporate and individual plaintiffs challenge a federal regulation requiring employers to provide employee health insurance that covers certain contraceptives. The challenged regulation (“the Regulation”) was promulgated under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act and applies to Hobby Lobby and Mardel. The Greens…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
  3. Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API