October Term 2013 · Docket 13-354

Do religious employers face a compelling interest test for contraceptive coverage?

Hobby Lobby argues the government must show a compelling interest. The government argues the law is neutral and generally applicable.

Official caption
Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Verrilli argued that religious freedom limits apply when activities affect others.

    Mr. Clement argued the agency knew religious claims would follow the mandate.

    justice_questions

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether a federal mandate violates religious freedom. Hobby Lobby seeks an exemption from providing certain contraceptives. The government seeks to enforce the mandate uniformly.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 25, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Hobby Lobby wants an exemption from the contraceptive mandate.

The government wants to enforce the mandate on all employers.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Hobby Lobby argues the mandate burdens their religious exercise.

The government argues the law is neutral and generally applicable.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if exemptions would create a piecemeal system.

Justice Kagan asked if the interpretation subjects the entire U.S. Code to strict scrutiny.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of religious exemptions in federal law. It determines how courts balance individual rights against public health mandates. The outcome shapes future challenges to government regulations.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON