How did the Supreme Court rule on religious objections by for-profit corporations in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?

In the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows closely held for-profit corporations to claim religious exemptions.1

The Court determined that such corporations qualify as legal "persons" under the RFRA and are therefore capable of exercising religion. Consequently, these companies may refuse to provide health insurance coverage for specific contraceptive methods mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if those requirements conflict with the owners' sincerely held religious beliefs.12

The ruling centered on the principle that the government must use the "least restrictive means" to further a compelling interest when its regulations impose a "substantial burden" on religious exercise. The Court concluded that the government failed to meet this standard regarding the contraceptive mandate for these specific types of corporations.21