. 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–2(4) (2000 ed.)

Pp. [.That distinction is a facet of the pre-Smith jurisprudence RFRA incorporates.

See 45 CFR §147.140(g).
The Court entertained their claim (although it ruled against them on the merits), and if a similar claim were raised today under RFRA against a jurisdiction still subject to the Act (for example, the District of Columbia, see . for Cert. “We do not decide today whether [the] approach [the opinion advances] complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims.” Ante, at 44. 303 (1940) First Amendment to the Constitution.” §2000bb–2(4) (1994 ed.). See Brief for HHS in No. Employers providing “grandfathered health plans”—those that existed prior to March 23, 2010, and that have not made specified changes after that date—need not comply with many of the Act’s requirements, including the contraceptive mandate. Inattentive to this guidance, today’s decision elides entirely the distinction between the sincerity of a challenger’s religious belief and the substantiality of the burden placed on the challenger.Undertaking the inquiry that the Court forgoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families’ religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial. Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. 483 U. S. 327, Nor has HHS provided any statistics regarding the number of employees who might be affected because they work for corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel. [,Moreover, in Thomas v. Review Bd. 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a). Corporations, “separate and apart from” the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all.As we noted above, RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” [,Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA.

But that is not the only plausible inference from the failed amendment—or even the most likely. . He sincerely believed that withholding Social Security taxes from his employees or paying the employer’s share of such taxes would violate the Amish faith. Braunfeld v. Brown, 941, 945 (SC 1966) (owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration), aff’d in relevant part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 377 F. 2d 433 (CA4 1967), aff’d and modified on other grounds, The word “substantially” was inserted pursuant to a clarifying amendment offered by Senators Kennedy and Hatch. as Amici Curiae 23.

as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration [(HRSA)],” a unit of HHS. As just indicated, however, that statement does not accurately convey the Court’s pre-Smith jurisprudence. Does it rank as a less restrictive alternative to require the government to provide the money or benefit to which the employer hasa religion-based objection? For example, extending ; emphasis added). By framing any Government regulation as benefiting a third party, the Government could turn all regulations into entitlements to which nobody could object on religious grounds, rendering RFRA meaningless. . v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., et al.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit,No. These penalties would amount to roughly $26 million for Hobby Lobby, $1.8 million for Conestoga, and $800,000 for Mardel.Although these totals are high, amici supporting HHS have suggested that the $2,000 per-employee penalty is actually less than the average cost of providing health insurance, see Brief for Religious Organizations 22, and therefore, they claim, the companies could readily eliminate any substantial burden by forcing their employees to obtain insurance in the government exchanges.