Arguments in this case focused on the applicability of a similar case with an opposite ruling, U.S. v. Lee, which addressed a tax law.
Arguments in this case focused on the applicability of a similar case with an opposite ruling, U.S. v. Lee, which addressed a tax law. Immediately following the ruling in this case, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment against Eden Foods based on this case's outcome. In July 2014, a group of Satanists attempted to use this ruling as precedent to be exempt from pre-abortion counseling laws. Several Christian groups have cited it as precedent in seeking exemptions from anti-discrimination statutes, even though the ruling in this case states that it does not "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice." A lesser-studied dissent in this case argues that the central claim fails on the merits because the medications in question do not, in fact, induce abortion. For 10 points, name this 2014 Supreme Court case which found that closely held corporations do not have to fund medications that violate sincerely held religious beliefs.
Arguments in this case focused on the applicability of a similar case with an opposite ruling, U.S. v. Lee, which addressed a tax law.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby