-
Hobby Lobby files suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma over the federal mandate to provide four specific potentially life-terminating drugs and devices.
Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the contraception rule based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Hobby Lobby filed suit because they are a religious business who doesn’t want to have to give their employees contraception methods because it’s against their Christian beliefs. It affected the case because its what started the case. -
Hobby Lobby appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for emergency relief from the federal mandate.
In March 2013, the U.S. Court of appeals for the Tenth Circuit gave Hobby Lobby a hearing of the case in a three judge panel. The U.S. Court of Appeals gave Hobby Lobby a hearing of the case because they presented it to them, the store owners and the U.S. Court of Appeals were involved in this. It affected the case because it was a higher ranking in the courts, getting Hobby Lobby’s case more attention. -
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denies Hobby Lobby’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the federal mandate
After Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the contraception rule, they denied them preliminary injunction of that rule. They denied them that rule because their case wasn’t strong enough at the time. Store owners and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. It affected the case because it put them farther behind in their ultimate goal. -
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denies emergency relief
Once the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit gave Hobby Lobby a hearing of the case in a three judge panel, they denied Hobby Lobby’s request for preliminary injunction of the federal mandate. They denied the request because they didn’t present all their reasons for preliminary injunction of the federal mandate and because it was a tougher court system. The 3 judges and the store owners were involved and it affected the case by putting them farther behind in their ultimate goal, once again. -
U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. on March 25 to determine whether the government has the power to force family business owners to act against their faith based solely on their companies’ form of organization.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides of the case to decide whether or not it was the government's right to force a company against it’s religion. They made points that an employer can’t deprive employees of a statutory right because of religious beliefs. They ended with saying as long as the employer doesn’t impose his religion onto his employees or customers. Supreme Court, -
U.S District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants Hobby Lobby its preliminary injunction against the federal mandate.
The appeals court ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a person who has religious freedom and they were given preliminary injunction in July. They built up their case so they were granted preliminary injunction, the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and store owners were involved, it affected their case by them achieving a short term goal of preliminary injunction for the federal mandate. -
Federal government appeals the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Then Hobby Lobby filed a brief to them about right to religious freedom.
The Supreme Court struck down the HHS mandate because the claimed that it was not the “least restrictive” method of getting the governments attention. Supreme Court, Burwell and the store owners were involved and it affected the case by giving Burwell a Supreme Court hearing. -
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a landmark case addressing the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of business owners to operate their family companies without violating their deeply held religious convictions.
Since for-profit corporations can be considered “persons” under the RFRA, the court found that they can be protected under the laws protecting religion as it would a normal person. Lower courts had suggested that this wasn’t put in there for that purpose but for the purpose “to simply make money”. Supreme Court, Burwell and the store owners were involved in this and it affected the case by proving that the stores wouldn’t have their religion violated. -
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit grants Hobby Lobby a full court hearing of its case, rather than the usual three-judge panel.
Hobby Lobby was granted a full court hearing of their want of preliminary injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals. They took their new and built case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals and asked for a full court hearing of it. The U.S. Court of Appeals and store owners were involved in it. It affected the case by giving them more attention to the case in a bigger court system. -
The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.
The Supreme Court ruled that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. They ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby because they built their case. The Supreme Court and store owners were involved, it affected the case by winning, not only for them but for other for-profit religious companies.