Search for: "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc" Results 81 - 100 of 151
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2023, 4:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. in 2014 and the Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 2:56 pm by John Elwood
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Wheaton College v. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 7:23 am by Amy Howe
Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court held that a closely held corporation owned by a religiously devout family does not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate. [read post]
16 May 2016, 2:33 pm by Erin Morrow Hawley
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. in particular, suggests that the most important factor of the substantial-burden analysis is the religious adherents’ own view of the imposed burden. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 6:00 am by Nancy E. Halpern, D.V.M.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 706-707 (2014), corporations are defined as “persons” to provide protection for human beings. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
 First, a quick note on the government's new final rules regarding the religious accommodation (including its extension to some for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby, Inc.). [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 12:40 pm by Andrew Pincus
Hobby Lobby Stores United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 2:29 pm by Eugene Volokh
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), or Smith, where a religious group or person is asking for an accommodation or exemption from a generally applicable law. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 6:27 am by Jessica Webb-Ayer
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., that the ACA’s contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) as it is applied to “closely held corporations. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 6:08 am by Joy Waltemath
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., where the court held that the mandate violated the RFRA with respect to corporations that were neither automatically exempt from the mandate as religious employers nor eligible for the accommodation, was not instructive because the Hobby Lobby Court did not address the second question of the substantial burden analysis. [read post]