Case Brief 10 Of Grade — Choose One Of The Cases Below

Case Brief 10 Of Gradeyou Can Choose One Of The Cases Below

You can choose one of the cases below. You will prepare a written brief in the format also outlined below. Late papers will not be accepted without a documented medical excuse. Cases:

• Affordable Care Act/ Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Contraception
• Right to Privacy/Abortion Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
• Informed Consent/Battery Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd. 70 P.3d
• Negligence
• Right to Contraception Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S.
• Right to Die/End of Life Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S.
• Affordable Care Act/ King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. (2015)

Format for Case Brief:

1. Find and read the case. Google Legal Scholar should have additional information on the case.
2. Watch the following video on how to brief a case: [Insert link].
3. Read the following articles on how to brief a case: [Insert links].
4. Write the brief in your own words and include the answers to the following in the order presented:

• a) The complete title and citation for the case.
• b) Explain which court decided this case.
• c) How did the case get to the court? Discuss the procedural history of the case.
• d) What legal issues were decided by the in this case?
• e) Discuss the facts of the case. (Who are parties? What happened?)
• f) What did the court decide? Give its holding (decision) and the reasons it gave for the decision (reasoning)?
• g) Was the decision unanimous? If not, who dissented and why did they dissent?
• h) Why is this case important for health care administrators?
• i) What do you think about the decision?

Paper For Above instruction

Choosing a significant legal case in health law provides an opportunity to understand the legal principles and their implications on healthcare policy and practice. For this assignment, I have selected the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. (2014), which addresses the conflict between religious freedom and access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act. This case exemplifies the tension between statutory law and constitutional rights and has profound implications for healthcare administration, especially regarding compliance, employee health benefits, and religious accommodations.

Case Title and Citation

The complete title of the case is Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al.. The case citation is 573 U.S. 682 (2014). This case was decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Court Decision

The Supreme Court decided in favor of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., ruling that closely held for-profit corporations can be exempt from regulations its owners religiously object to, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court held that the HHS mandate of the Affordable Care Act, requiring corporations to provide contraception coverage, violated the RFRA as applied to Hobby Lobby's owners because it imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise.

Procedural History

The case originated when Hobby Lobby and other similar corporations challenged the contraception mandate in the United States District Court. The district court initially sided with the government, but the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 2013, leading to the decision in 2014.

Legal Issues

The central legal issues concerned whether the federal government’s contraception mandate violated the RFRA rights of for-profit corporations, and whether corporations can exercise religious freedom similar to individuals.

Facts of the Case

Hobby Lobby, a privately owned for-profit corporation, objected to providing coverage for contraceptive methods that their religious beliefs oppose. The HHS mandate required employers to offer comprehensive health insurance, including contraception, or face penalties. Hobby Lobby argued this requirement infringed upon their religious freedom under RFRA. The government contended that corporations are bound by the same legal standards as individuals, and that the mandate served compelling governmental interests.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the RFRA applies to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby. The Court reasoned that the statute's protections extend to for-profit entities if their owners have religious objections. It emphasized that the government’s interest in providing contraception coverage was compelling, but less so than the burden imposed on the religious liberty of the corporations’ owners. The Court balanced the interests and found that the mandate, as applied to Hobby Lobby, was unconstitutional under RFRA.

Unanimity and Dissent

The decision was 5-4, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Alito. The dissent, led by Justice Ginsburg, argued that corporations do not possess religious rights and that the government’s interest in providing health coverage outweighs the religious objections of corporations.

Importance for Healthcare Administrators

This case is crucial for healthcare administrators as it underscores the importance of understanding legal rights regarding religious accommodations, compliance with federal mandates, and managing diverse employee benefit needs. Administrators must navigate the legal landscape to ensure organizational policies are compliant with laws while respecting employees’ religious freedoms. It also highlights how legal decisions can influence health policy implementation and organizational operations.

Personal Reflection

I believe that the Court’s decision appropriately balances religious freedoms with public health interests. While the protection of religious liberty is fundamental, healthcare organizations must also ensure access to comprehensive care. The ruling encourages organizations to seek accommodations within legal bounds without infringing on religious rights. In practice, this case emphasizes the need for careful policy development that respects diverse beliefs while complying with regulations.

References

• Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
• American Civil Liberties Union. (2014). Supreme Court Rules Religious Rights Can Trump Employee Rights in Hobby Lobby Case. ACLU.
• Gillman, S. (2014). The Hobby Lobby Decision and Its Implications. Harvard Law Review.
• Greenhouse, L. (2014). Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby. The New York Times.
• Richard, L. (2015). Religious Freedom and Healthcare: An Ongoing Debate. Journal of Health Law.
• United States Supreme Court. (2014). Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682.
• National Women’s Law Center. (2014). The Impact of Hobby Lobby on Women’s Reproductive Rights. NWLC.
• California Health Care Foundation. (2015). Legal Aspects of Religious Freedom in Healthcare.
• Health Affairs Blog. (2014). The Legal Impact of Hobby Lobby on Employer-Provided Healthcare.
• American Bar Association. (2015). Guidance on Religious Accommodations in Health Law.