Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 11)

I have come to the realization whilst working through this interview, that I had no clue as to the finer points of this dispute.

1]  As per the SCOTUSblog, the "full" title of the case (without all the funky numbers) is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.  Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services is considered the lead petitioner by proxy; in other words it is her job.

2]  As mentioned prior, the Hobby Lobby case is also linked to  Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius

3]  Sebelius, in regards to Hobby Lobby  is considered the petitioner because the Department of Health and Human Services (the government) is initiating the claim, seeking clarification of the lower Court rulings concerning the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993:

In a divided decision, the en banc court of appeals held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., allows respondent for-profit corporations to deny employees the health coverage to which they are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the respondent individuals who own a controlling stake in the corporations.  As the government explains in its petition for a writ of certiorari (at 16-35), that unprecedented decision merits review because it raises important questions about RFRA’s application to regulation of commercial enterprises and because there is an acknowledged conflict in the courts of appeals on the question presented.

In plainer terms does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow Hobby Lobby to deny its employees contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners?

4]  Simplified Case Timeline/Summary:

• September 12, 2012 - Hobby Lobby files initial suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), against the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.
• October 15, 2012 - District Court Judge Joe Heaton denied "friend of the court" filed by a group of (then) current members of Congress arguing for a broad application of RFRA.
• October 22, 2012 - Government counters with an injunction arguing that the contraception mandate did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious liberty rights under RFRA, and that the regulations were the least restrictive means of advancing the government's compelling interests in public health and gender equality. The brief further argued that the mandate did not violate the plaintiff's religious freedom because it was a neutral law of general applicability.
• November 19, 2012 - District Court Judge Joe Heaton denied Hobby Lobby's motion for a preliminary injunction; secular, for-profit corporations (such as Hobby Lobby) do not have a constitutional right to religious freedom.
• December 12, 2012 - Hobby; Lobby appeals Heaton's decision; a stay is granted in regards to previous ruling pending the 10th Circuit appeal.
• December 20, 2012 - The Court of Appeals (Judge Carlos F. Lucero and Judge David M. Ebel) denied Hobby Lobby's motion for an injunction pending appeal on the same grounds as the District Court's injunction denial.
• December 26, 2012 - Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Justice for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals,
• denied Hobby Lobby's application for an injunction pending appellate review.  Finding that the plaintiffs' entitlement to injunctive relief was not indisputably clear.
• On March 29, 2013 - The 10th Circuit decided to hear the case in front of all the circuit's judges; this is an en banc review.  An unusual occurrence, as first a 3-judge panel normally would hear the case then en banc.
• May 23, 2013 - Oral arguments occurred
• On June 27, 2013 - The 10th Circuit, en banc, reversed the District Court's injunction denial, finding that Hobby Lobby was entitled to bring RFRA claims.  The 10th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court, asking the lower court to address two remaining prongs of the injunction inquiry and to decide whether to grant or deny Hobby Lobby's motion for an injunction.
• June 28, 2013 - District Court Judge Joe Heaton) granted Hobby Lobby's emergency motion asking the District Court to grant a temporary injunction pending the full injunction hearing.
• July 19, 2013 - followed up by a longer-lasting order.
• November 26, 2013 - The government sought certiorari review of the 10th Circuit decision in the Supreme Court; cert was; the Supreme Court consolidated this case with Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, a similar case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.