Search for: "Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. " Results 121 - 140 of 262
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2013, 9:35 am by Amy Howe
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 9:30 pm by RegBlog
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which asks if the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits an employer to deny contraceptive insurance coverage required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 3:30 am by Elizabeth Pollman
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court looked to the religious beliefs of the shareholders in allowing the corporation to claim protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 9:50 am by Howard Friedman
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc, (Docket No. 13-354) and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 8:22 am by Debra A. McCurdy
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.) addressing certain religious objections to such coverage. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 7:44 am by Anonymous
Among other rulings that came to national attention, is Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
” Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Hobby Lobby, some commentators (such as this one) have objected to the Court’s deference to what they consider to be a factually inaccurate characterization of the challenged birth control methods. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 10:18 am by John Eastman
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., its application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to closely held corporations, and what the decision portends for the so-called accommodation for groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor that is currently being litigated. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:06 am by Michael Dorf
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 5:06 pm by John Ehrett
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; (2) whether HHS can satisfy RFRA’s demanding test for overriding sincerely held religious objections in circumstances where HHS itself insists that overriding the religious objection will not fulfill HHS’s regulatory objective – namely, the provision of no-cost contraceptives to the objector’s employees; and (3) whether the First Amendment allows HHS to discriminate among nonprofit religious employers who share the… [read post]