Ads
related to: hobby lobby court case summarylegal.thomsonreuters.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision [1] [2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom ...
As a result of the case, Hobby Lobby agreed to return the artifacts and forfeit $3 million. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement returned 3,800 items seized from Hobby Lobby to Iraq in May 2018. [2] In March 2020, Hobby Lobby president Steve Green agreed to return 11,500 items to Egypt and Iraq. [3] [4]
[20] The Court held that there was a substantial burden, saying, "Because the contraceptive mandate forces them to pay an enormous sum of money—as much as $475 million per year in the case of Hobby Lobby—if they insist on providing insurance coverage in accordance with their religious beliefs, the mandate clearly imposes a substantial ...
Legal counsel for the Supreme Court on Monday responded to an inquiry from Democratic lawmakers by reiterating Justice Samuel Alito’s denial of a report alleging that the outcome of a pending ...
PLANTATION, FL - JUNE 30: A Hobby Lobby store is seen on June 30, 2014 in Plantation, Florida. Today in Washington, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a suit brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby ...
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) [15] in their fight to exempt themselves from having to pay for four different drugs and devices they deemed as abortifacients. [16] The court ruled 5–4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, asserting that family owned businesses have a right to operate in accordance with their conscience. [17] [18] Becket also litigated ...
Hobby Lobby's battle against Obamacare “This decor is WRONG on SO many levels. There is nothing decorative about raw cotton…A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American ...
Case name Citation Summary Gonzales v. Oregon: 546 U.S. 243 (2006) Attorney General did not permissibly construe Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the distribution of drugs for physician-assisted suicide: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England: 546 U.S. 320 (2006)