University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
Title "Postscript to Hobby Lobby: Prescription for Accommodation or Overdose"
Date Spring 2016
Author Paula Walter
Author Institution DePaul University College of Law
External Link
Abstract The debate in Congress, preceding the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), unfurled an inquiry into the nature of healthcare in the United States and the role of the government in its delivery. The ACA was enacted into law in 2010 without Republican congressional support.2 Multiple congressional attempts to repeal the ACA have failed and, instead, a proliferation of lawsuits sought to accomplish through the judiciary what the failed legislative efforts could not.

The first United States Supreme Court decision in 2012 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius' was dispositive in its ruling that the ACA was constitutional and within the taxing power of the federal government. The individual mandate, the linchpin of the ACA, which requires every adult to purchase health insurance, was validated. Failure to obtain the required insurance results in a penalty payable upon the filing of that individual's taxes with the IRS.

In June 2014, the United States Supreme Court, had its second consideration of litigation regarding provisions of the controversial ACA legislation in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. In that decision, the Court held that a for-profit corporation can assert a claim of free exercise of religion and request an accommodation from compliance with the contraceptive mandate.' This article contends that, consequent to the Court's ruling in Hobby Lobby, the efforts of the challengers to use the judiciary to derail the legislatively enacted contraceptive mandate provisions of the ACA have been successful, and suggests alternatives for dealing with the flood of anticipated accommodation claims.
Source DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and the Law
Citation 5 DePaul J. Women Gender & L. 1-23

This Resource Relates To
case Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (FA-PA-0007)

new search