This seminal Supreme Court case dealt with the controversy over whether closely held businesses could refuse to provide employees access to emergency contraception or birth control based on owners' religious beliefs.

This seminal Supreme Court case dealt with the controversy over whether closely held businesses could refuse to provide employees access to emergency contraception or birth control based on owners' religious beliefs.

• A. Citizens United v. FEC
• B. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
• C. Obergefell v. Hodges
• D. Roe v. Wade

Answer: (B)

The question tests how religious freedom interacts with federal health policy, specifically whether owners’ religious beliefs can let a closely held business refuse to provide employees access to emergency contraception or birth control under the ACA. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for-profit corporations with closely held ownership can be exempt from the contraception mandate if complying would violate the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court treated the corporation as able to exercise religion through its owners, establishing that the government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means; in this case, the Court found the mandate to be not the least restrictive means for these particular entities. The decision is narrow, applying to closely held for-profit corporations with religious objections, rather than to all businesses. Other listed cases address different issues—campaign finance limits on political spending, nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, and abortion rights—so they do not address religious exemptions from health-care mandates.

The question tests how religious freedom interacts with federal health policy, specifically whether owners’ religious beliefs can let a closely held business refuse to provide employees access to emergency contraception or birth control under the ACA.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, for-profit corporations with closely held ownership can be exempt from the contraception mandate if complying would violate the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court treated the corporation as able to exercise religion through its owners, establishing that the government must show a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means; in this case, the Court found the mandate to be not the least restrictive means for these particular entities. The decision is narrow, applying to closely held for-profit corporations with religious objections, rather than to all businesses.

Other listed cases address different issues—campaign finance limits on political spending, nationwide recognition of same-sex marriage, and abortion rights—so they do not address religious exemptions from health-care mandates.