Regarding the Hobby Lobby oral arguments

We foreshadowed this opinion earlier this semester in 2305 when we covered religious liberty and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We discussed the factors that can and cannot be used to limit religious liberty and mentioned that generally applicable laws were judged to trump religious liberty, but RFRA may have changed that by stating a law cannot impose a substantive burden on religious liberty.

Here's the issue presented to the court in the Hobby Lobby case:

Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Here's the one presented in the Conestoga case:

Whether the religious owners of a family business, or their closely held, for-profit corporation, have free exercise rights that are violated by the application of the contraceptive-coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

Some of the questions posed included asking whether coverage of contraception is a compelling governmental interest and whether a for-profit corporation possess religious liberty.

- Click here for the transcript of the oral argument.

ScotusBlog details various aspects of the case and the oral argument.
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
- Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.
- Argument recap: One hearing, two dramas.
- Birth control, business, and religious beliefs: In Plain English.

The Dish has two collections of posts related to the argument:
- What To Expect From Hobby Lobby
- What To Expect From Hobby Lobby, Ctd