The Contraceptive Mandate Controversy and the Future of Religious Accommodations in the United States: A Study of the us Supreme Court Case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

in Religion & Human Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


With its decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the us Supreme Court adjudicated over the “Contraceptive Mandate”, a regulation of the Healthcare Reform that aroused religious concerns as it requires companies offering health insurance to its employees to cover contraceptives. Recognizing for the first time that private companies are (legal) “persons” exercising religion, the Court declared that the Mandate violates their religious freedom and exempted them from covering contraceptives. The article argues that the restrictive interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (rfra) here proposed, by granting strong protection to corporations’ religious claims over their employees’ interest in equal access to health care, may lead to the proliferation of religious accommodations far beyond this controversy. Yet, the article concludes that this dangerous scenario can be limited by taking into consideration the impact of religious accommodations on third parties’ rights, as imposed by an interpretation of rfra consistent with the Establishment Clause.

Religion & Human Rights

An International Journal




D. Laycock, ‘Religious liberty and the Culture Wars’, Univ. Virg. School of Law—Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series No. 23 (2013).


Since the first case, Belmont Abbey College v. Sebelius, 878 F. Supp. 2d 25 (d.d.c., July 18, 2012) filed on November 2011, 101 lawsuits have been filed, 52 by non-profit institutions, 45 by for-profit corporations and 4 by both for-profit and non-profit plaintiffs. For a complete overview of all the lawsuits against the hhs Mandate, see Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hhs Mandate Information Central, <>, 1 May 2015.


78 Fed. Reg. 8462.


Dissenting Opinion, p. 29.


Lupu, supra note 27, p. 44.


Ibid., p. 261.


At, p. 48 of the judgement, note 43.


Diss.op., p. 1.


Diss.op., pp. 33–34.


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 41 41 4
Full Text Views 9 9 9
PDF Downloads 3 3 3
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0