Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision [1] [2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom ...
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. recognizing a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief. [3] Nineteen members of Congress who signed the original RFRA stated in a submission to the Supreme Court that they "could not have anticipated, and did not intend, such a broad and unprecedented expansion of RFRA". [ 14 ]
Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher: 547 U.S. 1 (2006) joint venture was not a price-fixing scheme under antitrust law Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: 547 U.S. 9 (2006) physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act: Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. 547 U.S. 28 (2006)
The last major contraception case to go before the Supreme Court was 2014’s Burwell v.Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Christian owners of the craft empire Hobby Lobby sued the Obama ...
One example Ranji gave of people fighting against access to emergency contraception was the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court Case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, where the majority of the court held the craft ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Duncan argued two cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and has acted as lead counsel in numerous other cases in that Court, including Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014), in which he successfully led litigation challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate on behalf of Hobby Lobby stores. [1]
Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013): The court found for-profit corporations Hobby Lobby and Mardel Christian Bookstores could assert religious freedom as "persons" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [9] Judge Tymkovich wrote for the five-judge en banc majority, over a three-judge dissent. [10]