Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: Religious Liberty and the Contraceptive Mandate

How a 2014 Supreme Court ruling let some employers opt out of contraceptive coverage based on religious belief.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 5, 2026

Branched from Religious Liberty Versus State Authority: What Early Mormonism Teaches About American Church-State Conflict

Quick take

Hobby Lobby, a craft-supply chain, refused to provide certain contraceptives in employee health plans, claiming it violated the owners' religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that closely held companies can use religious objections to sidestep federal healthcare mandates under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The decision expanded corporate religious rights but left millions of women potentially without free contraceptive coverage through their employer plans.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) is a Supreme Court decision that pitted federal healthcare law against corporate religious liberty. The case centered on whether Hobby Lobby, a closely held craft retailer, could refuse to include certain contraceptives in its employee health insurance plans based on the owners' religious objection to those methods. The Court ruled 5–4 that it could, marking a major expansion of how religious belief can shield a for-profit business from federal mandates.

What the Affordable Care Act Required

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed in 2010, required most employers to include contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans at no cost to employees. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a list of FDA-approved contraceptives—including birth control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraceptives like Plan B—that had to be covered. The rule included a narrow religious exemption for churches and religious nonprofits, but not for secular businesses, even if the owners held sincere religious beliefs.

Hobby Lobby's owners, members of the Green family, are evangelical Christians who object to certain contraceptive methods they believe cause abortion. They argued that being forced to provide coverage for those methods violated their religious conscience and their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 federal law that prevents the government from substantially burdening religious exercise without a compelling reason.

The Court's Reasoning

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, hinged on two key moves. First, it held that the RFRA applies to for-profit corporations, not just individuals or religious organizations. Second, it found that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby's owners, even though the burden was indirect—they didn't personally have to use the contraceptives; their company just had to pay for them in insurance.

The Court then asked whether the government had a compelling interest in requiring the coverage and whether the mandate was the least restrictive means of achieving it. While acknowledging that preventing unintended pregnancy is important, the majority noted that the government had already carved out exemptions for churches and religious nonprofits. If those entities could be exempted without undermining the policy, Alito reasoned, then closely held for-profit companies with sincere religious owners could be too. The government, the Court concluded, had other ways to ensure women had access to contraceptives—through other programs or by adjusting how the mandate applied.

The Dissent and Its Concerns

The four dissenting justices, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warned that the ruling would open the door to religious exemptions across many areas of law. They argued that once a for-profit corporation can claim religious rights, employers could potentially refuse coverage for vaccines, blood transfusions, or other medical services based on religious grounds. They also pointed out that the burden fell on employees—particularly women—who would lose contraceptive coverage simply because of their boss's beliefs, not their own.

Why This Case Matters

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby reshaped the relationship between religious liberty, corporate rights, and federal law. Before the ruling, it was generally understood that religious exemptions applied to religious institutions and individuals, not secular businesses. The decision broke that assumption and created a new category: closely held for-profit companies whose owners hold sincere religious beliefs can claim religious exemptions from federal mandates.

The ruling also changed how courts weigh religious liberty claims. Under RFRA, the government must now show not just that a law serves a compelling interest, but that it does so in the least restrictive way possible. For the contraceptive mandate, the Court found that less restrictive alternatives existed (such as the government directly providing contraceptives or using the workaround it had already created for religious nonprofits). This set a high bar for future healthcare and workplace regulations when religious objections are raised.

Practically, the decision meant that women working for Hobby Lobby and similar closely held companies could lose free contraceptive coverage—a benefit the ACA intended to provide universally. It also signaled to other employers and religious groups that courts might be receptive to religious exemptions in other contexts, from healthcare to civil rights law.

What Happened After

The Trump administration expanded the exemption. In 2017 and 2018, it broadened the religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate, allowing not just churches and religious nonprofits but also any employer—secular or religious—to opt out if they had a sincere religious or moral objection. The Biden administration later narrowed those exemptions again, attempting to restore the original ACA framework.

The case also inspired other religious liberty lawsuits. Employers have since challenged mandates related to vaccines, gender identity protections, and other federal requirements using similar RFRA arguments, citing Hobby Lobby as precedent. Courts have not uniformly sided with employers, but the decision created a legal template for raising religious objections to federal law.

The Closely Held Company Question

The ruling applies only to 'closely held' corporations—those owned by a small number of shareholders, typically a family. Most large public companies do not qualify.
The Court did not define 'closely held' precisely, leaving some ambiguity about which businesses can claim the exemption.

Did Hobby Lobby have to provide contraceptives after the ruling?

No. The Supreme Court's decision meant Hobby Lobby was exempt from the ACA's contraceptive coverage requirement. However, women employed by Hobby Lobby could still access contraceptives through other means—their own insurance, government programs, or other employers—but not through their workplace health plan at no cost.

Does this ruling apply to all employers?

No. The ruling specifically applies to closely held for-profit corporations—typically family-owned businesses. Large public companies and most other employers are not covered by this exemption. Additionally, the decision is limited to the contraceptive mandate; it does not automatically apply to other federal laws, though it has been cited in similar cases.

Can employers now refuse coverage for other medical services based on religion?

Potentially, yes—though courts would have to apply the same RFRA analysis. An employer would need to show a sincere religious belief and that a federal mandate substantially burdens it. Some employers have tried to extend Hobby Lobby to vaccines and other treatments, with mixed results. The ruling did not create a blanket right; each case depends on its facts.

What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

The RFRA, passed in 1993, is a federal law that protects religious exercise from government burden. It says the government cannot substantially burden someone's religious practice unless it has a compelling reason and uses the least restrictive means to achieve it. Before Hobby Lobby, courts had not applied it to for-profit corporations; the ruling extended it to closely held companies.

Did this ruling affect religious nonprofits?

Not directly. Religious nonprofits already had an exemption from the contraceptive mandate before Hobby Lobby. The ruling extended similar protections to closely held for-profit companies. However, the case did establish that religious exemptions can apply to secular businesses, which influenced how courts and the government think about religious liberty claims in other contexts.

Sources

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)—the Supreme Court opinion and dissent.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (1993).
Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18001 et seq. (2010), and HHS contraceptive coverage regulations.