Home » En Banc » En Banc Roundtable » Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

This Roundtable considers Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which was argued at the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014. In Hobby Lobby, the Court will consider whether Hobby Lobby is entitled to an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). The Court could address many questions: Is a for-profit corporation a “person” for the purposes of the RFRA? Would denying Hobby Lobby an exemption usher in an era of overly constrained religious liberty? Does an exemption from the mandate improperly impose the costs of religious observance onto third-party employees? Professors Richard Garnett, Gregory Magarian, Andrew Koppelman, Frederick Gedicks, and James Oleske tackle these questions and more in their First Takes on Hobby Lobby.

Professors Richard Garnett, Gregory Magarian, Andrew Koppelman, Frederick Gedicks, and James Oleske have each considered the precedents and offered their views on how the Court might—or should—approach this case in their “First Takes” essays below. Soon, the authors will respond to one another’s arguments in the “Responses” phase of the Roundtable. We hope you find this Roundtable to be both informative and engaging.

Roundtable: First Takes

Accommodation, Establishment, and Freedom of Religion
PDF · Richard W. Garnett · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 39 (2014).

Invisible Women: Why an Exemption for Hobby Lobby Would Violate the Establishment Clause
PDF · Frederick Mark Gedicks & Andrew Koppelman · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 51 (2014).

Hobby Lobby in Constitutional Waters: Two Life Rings and an Anchor
PDF · Gregory P. Magarian · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 67 (2014).

Obamacare, RFRA, and the Perils of Legislative History
PDF · James M. Oleske, Jr. · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 77 (2014).

Roundtable: Responses

Whose Accommodation?
PDF · Gregory P. Magarian · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 135 (2014).

The Public Meaning of RFRA Versus Legislators’ Understanding of RLPA: A Response to Professor Laycock
PDF · James M. Oleske, Jr. · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 125 (2014).

The Costs of the Public Good of Religion Should Be Borne by the Public
PDF · Frederick Mark Gedicks & Andrew Koppelman · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 185 (2014).

A Reply to Professor Oleske

Imaginary Contradictions: A Reply to Professor Oleske
PDF · Douglas Laycock · 67 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 89 (2014).

Previous Roundtables

Golan v. Holder | Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. | Skilling v. United States | Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board